LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



dfpqt, Sapjrtgfjt f a,.r..& 

Shelf 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



UNION OF 

Episcopal Methodisms 



BY R. S. h FOSTER 
ii 



( 



NEW YORK: HUNT &= EATON 
CINCINNATI : CRANSTON <&» STOWE 
1892 



iUN 1 )892 J 




Copyright, 1892, by 
HUNT & EATON, 
New York. 



AFTER SEPARATION, UNITY. 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Introduction , 5 

Sects, their Grounds and Justification 10 

Determining Reasons for the Existence of Sects 13 

Reasons for Consolidation of Sects 22 

Reasons for Existence of More than One Sect or Church Organiza- 
tion in any Given Community 24 

The Foregoing Principles Applied to the Union of Methodisms 31 

Reasons for Organic Union between the Methodist Episcopal Church 

and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South 51 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHOD1SMS. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The subject of the reunion of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has for a 
considerable time been a matter of much and anxious thought 
by the best minds of both bodies. It has also been noted as a 
matter of interest to other religious bodies, and even statesmen 
not supposedly specially concerned with religious questions 
have counted it worthy of remark. Recently, notably since 
the Ecumenical Convention at the nation's capital, it has assumed 
greater prominence. The journals of both bodies have been 
loaded with elaborate articles on the subject. Several books 
have been written, ministers and laymen have made it a subject 
of interested conversation. It has been deliberated and de- 
bated in public and private, wide and deep interest has been 
awakened on the subject. It is hardly possible that it should 
be permitted to lapse without eliciting some action ; indeed, 
such an outcome would be little short of a calamity. These cir- 
cumstances, together with a profound interest in the subject, 
and deep personal convictions with respect to the duty of the 
hour, are the explanation of what is here written. Personally 
preoccupied with other matters requiring an overexpendi- 
ture of energies already overtaxed, I would have preferred to 
remain silent but for a sense of duty inconvenient to resist. 

Though it might, to the superficial observer, seem to be a 



6 



UMON OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



matter of small moment, and of mere private concernment to a 
denomination, it is, as will appear, a matter of great public con- 
cern, in the right settlement of which all denominations and the 
nation itself have common interest. 

Methodism is a sect, to be sure — a sect among many sects ; 
its private affairs are matters chiefly of household interest in 
which the outside public do not share, but the question now 
mooted is not a ])rivate affair which affects itself only. Meth- 
odism, though a sect, is a great power for good or evil in the 
land. It ramifies the whole country, from the mountains to the 
gulf, from sea-board to sea-board. Its communicants count by 
many millions, and its adherents by many more millions. Its 
peculiar ecclesiasticism makes it a potent factor in the nation's 
weal with respect to questions which are rife among us to-day. 
Whether its power and agency for good shall be maintained 
is not an indifferent question. Historians and statesman, not 
partisans, have accorded to Methodism a place of conspicuous 
honor as a chief factor in improving the religious condition of 
Christendom in the last hundred years. Other sects have not 
been slow to admit it. Especially it is acknowledged to have 
been a prime instrument in cementing these States and in carry- 
ing religious and civilizing influences into their remote dis- 
tricts and along their rapidly advancing borders. It has done 
more to liberate thought, and yet to conserve faith and engender 
pious feeling, than any one agent, not simply in our own country, 
but in other Christian lands. 

This especially is no time to look with indifference upon any 
thing that touches the power and vigor of this great Christian 
family. The age is surcharged with frightful forces. If there ever 
was a day when this great sect was needed to exert its utmost 
power and therefore be in its best condition it is to-day. Every 
patriot and every Christian, irrespective of name or creed, must 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



7 



feel tins; much more should every Methodist feel it. The 
question, then, is one of public and universal interest. 

My hair was once black as the raven, it is now white as the 
snow. It is eventide. I shall soon cease to speak with voice 
or pen to my fellow-men; this consideration alone, were there 
none other, is sufficient to induce the desire and create the pur- 
pose that not one word shall be written in bitterness, or that, 
dying, I would wish to blot. 

With respect to the practicability of the union of these two > 
bodies, and with respect to the proper way of approaching it,, 
and the necessary preliminary steps, there is room for difference 
of judgment and a demand for the exercise of patience and for- 
bearance. For what is herein said I can only plead the most 
sincere respect for those who may differ from me in judgment. 

The question is upon us whether we will or not.. It is of no- 
body's foisting. It is born of existing facts which confront us 
and force attention. It will not longer be postponed. Inac- 
tion is positive action. At some time there must be the initia- 
tion of the proper consideration of the subject. That time 
seems fairly to be reached, and the initiative has already been 
taken. 

It is well to pause at the threshold and cast about that we 
may not make mistakes or fall into misdirections. The oppor- 
tunity for blunders is great ; we want to avoid them. The way 
is difficult; we need to be careful. We are Christian' brothers ; 
the question we are to consider together is a vexing one, full of 
irritations; we want most of all to begin and progress with a 
Christian spirit, and determine that neither by word nor act will 
we carelessly or intentionally offend ; and, more than that, that 
we will not find offense where none is intended. There are 
facts and fancies, opinions and measures, about which we shall 
disagree; this will arise from the fact that we are men. Let 



8 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM S. 



us state our differences in temperate and respectful words. 
" Suaviter in modo, foftiter in re" will remove all obstacles, 
if not at once, further on. Patience, not haste — candor, not 
harshness — siu^licity of aim, will lead us to the true goal, 
whether it be or be not the one we aim at. There will be some 
who will be unwise, rasping, improvident of speech, unholy of 
temper. Let us not be decoyed by the lure. There are better 
guides and lights ; if we keep close to them we shall not en*. 
May the good God himself help us to think only of his glory, 
and so lead us that the outcome will be well pleasing to him!. 

When this discussion commenced it was not in my thought 
more than to write out a few T reasons in favor of the reunion of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. It was not proposed even to discuss this sub- 
ject, but only to submit a brief statement on a single point. Un- 
expectedly, as it progressed, other Methodisms came into the 
view and seemed to demand a share of the paper. Then, for 
more complete satisfaction, the view widened itself again, and 
the subject of sect, and the ground and warrant for sects and 
the laws which should regulate sect life, made demand. Thus 
the paper has without intention drifted almost into the propor- 
tions of a treatise. Still, the original purpose has not for a moment 
been lost sight of, and the wider discussion, it is hoped, will 
place it in a clearer light, while it may help in other directions. 

"With a persistence difficult to maintain I have refused to 
write a single word about the origin of the separation of these 
bodies, and the wrangles and acts and actors in that unhappy 
event, except simply to state the fact itself. And so, in referring 
to the other Methodisms, I have been equally abstemious of 
any censures or praises. The single question, "What is the 
duty of the hour ?" has been kept steadily in view, and the dead 
past up to yesterday has been left to slumber in its grave. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



9 



It is hoped that the more fundamental matter and the sub- 
sidiary matter introduced, so intimately correlated with the main 
point in view, will help and not hurt the original objective 
point. 

With a sweet and loving spirit, not more to my own, or less, 
than to others, and with no other thought or aim than to find 
what duty is, and to help to its easy performance, I say, " Come, 
brothers, let us reason together," with the hope that when we 
have reasoned we will agree to live together again in peace and 
harmony, and go forth as of yore an undivided band for the 
conquest of the world to our great Leader and Captain. 



/ 



10 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



SECTS, THEIR GROUNDS AND JUSTIFICATION. 

As the chief object of this writing is to advocate the con- 
solidation of certain sects into one greater sect it is appropriate 
to introduce the discussion by a brief consideration of the 
grounds for the existence of sects and the laws which limit and 
regulate the operation of sect life. 

A sect is a division or fractional part of a whole. A Chris- 
tian sect is a division or fractional part of the whole Christian 
body. The Church is a higher unity which aggregates and 
comprises and is composed of the fractional parts. No one frac- 
tion is the Church any more than any other fraction, but a sect 
merely of the whole. Neither antiquity, nor historical conti- 
nuity from the ancient Church, nor tactual contact with it, nor 
any virtue arising therefrom or endowments thereby possessed, 
delivers any part from being a mere fraction or sect. 

The one all-inclusive Church known and recognized of God 
as participant of the life of Christ, its living Head, embraces all 
regenerate souls of all the ages, and is of one essential spirit. 
No sect is ideally perfect either in its personal components, 
creed, or practice ; but each partakes, to a greater or less extent, 
along with whatever good may be in it, of the inevitable ac- 
companiments of human frailty and imperfection, a mixture of 
good and evil. 

Any community of devout and spiritually-minded men and 
women, receiving the Holy Scriptures as the word of God, unit- 
ing themselves together for the worship of God, according to 
their honest convictions, and leading holy and blameless lives, 
is a true and real portion of his Church, and were there no other 
in the world would constitute the visible Church of God in the 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



n 



earth, and would, even though without historic connection or 
tactual descent from the ancient apostolic Church, be entitled 
to exercise all the priestly and any other functions now exer- 
cised and enjoyed by any existing sect. 

The largest and most widely disseminated sect has no more 
essential churchhood in it by reason of its size and respectability 
than the smallest ; an ancient sect no more than the most re- 
cent ; one of historic continuity and tactual connection with the 
earliest Christian community no more than one whose pedigree 
cannot be traced behind a decade, and who has no hand-touch 
with any other sect ; but is wholly new-born, if so be it is born of 
the Spirit. Possibly the sect which shall yet surpass all former 
sects for soundness of creed and holiness of its personal con- 
stituents, and which in other respects will most completely 
body the Christ, is yet to be. 

We thoroughly believe and accept these positions, and, doing 
so, affirm that sect life is not simply an existing fact, but is a 
justifiable fact, and that organic unity of the visible Church is 
not to be contended for as a necessity or under existing cir- 
cumstance as possible, or, if possible, desirable. The existence of 
sects is not necessarily a sin, nor to be condemned, but may be 
both right and commendable. The time may come when a 
more general union will be practicable, and when lines of sepa- 
ration will be less rigid ; but, if ever, it must be under different 
circumstances from any ever heretofore or at present existing. 

The question whether a sect shall commence to exist, or, hav- 
ing commenced, shall continue to exist, must be determined, 
not on the ground of any absolute law, either expressed or un- 
expressed, but purely on the ground of whether its beginning 
or continuance has a sufficient reason — that is, a reason which 
enforces separation as a matter of conscience on one ground 
or another. 



12 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



Shall a given sect extend itself here or there — shall it limit 
itself to these or those lines — must be determined by itself on 
the grounds of conviction of duty. There may exist sufficient 
reasons for a sect at one time and under one set of circum- 
stances ; and at another time and under another set of circum- 
stances there may exist such reasons for its non-existence or 
its fusion with another sect as to make its continuance a sin. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



13 



DETERMINING REASONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SECTS. 

What are the reasons determinative on Christian grounds 
for the existence of different sects or denominations among 
Christians ? 

Some sects arrogate great glory to themselves, by rating all 
other divisions of the Church as sects, and claiming for 
themselves that they are the Church ; the sects are excluded. 
All such pretense is a cheap delusion or thin fraud, as the case 
may be. 

We have already said there is but one Church ; we now affirm 
that in that Church there are many legitimate sects, by which 
we mean simply that there are definite communities marked off 
for purposes of more harmonious and efficient Christian activity, 
each comprising a certain number of members of that one 
Church. These several communities differ in some degree in 
their interpretation and understanding of certain doctrines, and 
in their judgment as to what are the best methods, and these 
differences take names and fix distinctions or sect lines. Is this 
necessarily an evil? We are constrained to think not. It, like 
any other good, may be made the occasion of evil, or, as we 
think, it may be occasion of good — may be a good. 

The Church, composed of all true believers of all the ages, 
exists through agency, and itself has a mission. Its mission 
is self -propagation. It does not exist for itself alone — for the 
delectation of its own constituents. It bears a commission to all 
unevangelized people. By means of the truth of which it is 
the divinely constituted custodian, and by means of the regener- 
ate life of which it has become the recipient, and by means of 
its sacramental trusts and ordinances, it is not only commis- 



14 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM S. 



sioned, but is required to go forth and propagate its life in other 
souls over all the world and to the end of the world. 

Each soul is an individual part of the Church, and to it comes 
a measure of responsibility to cany forward this aggressive 
commission, and also to preserve and develop its own individ- 
ual life. It so happens, growing out of the frailties of human 
judgment and the limitations of environment and faculty, that 
there arise differences, both as to doctrines and methods — dif- 
ferences which are more or less grave. When verj 7 grave, or 
so esteemed by those affected by them, conscience becomes in- 
volved, and dissent and protest and refusal of conformity are 
called forth ; the unity of the body is disturbed, division al- 
ready exists. Conformity must be surrendered, or rupture is 
inevitable. To enforce conformity is persecution — is to sub- 
stitute the thumb-screw for the conscience. 

The question inevitably arises whether the discordant ele- 
ments shall go asunder or chafe within the body. That ques- 
tion must on Christian principles be determined by the answer 
to another question ; that is, Which will probably be most con- 
ducive to the furtherance of the mission of the Church itself — 
which will be for peace and efficiency — which will be most 
likely in the long run to clear the truth and establish the best 
methods of church life and work ? 

Both the intelligence and conscience of the race have decided 
in favor of the right of individual judgment and the liberty of 
conscience — "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all 
things charit} T ." That decision will never be reconsidered, re- 
argued, or revoked. Protestantism was born of it as a revolt 
against the dictation of the Roman hierarchy. Attempt at re- 
pression created two sects — the one, that which assumed the 
right to force ; the other, that which claimed the right of dis- 
sent. That the existence of the former justified the existence 



UMON OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



15 



of the latter is questioned now only by the devotees of priest- 
craft. The deliverance of the race from an intolerable bond- 
age, and the purification of the Church from superstitions, : 
fables, and corruptions, and the growth and enlargement of. 
knowledge, are the standing proofs of its wisdom. 

The assumption of infallibility by an order of men, and of" 
the right growing out of the infallibility to enforce conformity, 
in the presence of what we know of man, and in the light of 
history, is all that is necessary to justify protest, resistance, 
separation. In the two claims are the elements that eternal- 
ize error and legitimatize the Inquisition and resort, to impris- 
onments, tortures, and death. The principle which made Prot- 
estantism possible involves diversities of sects; and so long as 
the occasion exists it will produce them. 

There is a limit to the application of the principle. The 
principle is liberty of judgment in the matter of doctrines and 
freedom of conscience in the matter of conformity. The right 
of dissent is from human interpretations and impositions. Ab- 
solute commandments and divine declarations of doctrine are 
authoritative and final. While the essence is held tolerance 
and charity will allow of difference, and the need of separa- 
tion may not exist. For one cause and another there will be 
misuse of the principle, and separations will occur on insuffi- 
cient grounds. Little sects will spring up, but will soon perish 
for the want of sufficient substance on which to live, or will 
never be able to justify their existence.. History is full of 
such mere escapades of errant fancies or outbursts of rest- 
lessness. The Church needs to be patient and long-suffering 
with them; time removes the irritation, or forbearance pre- 
vents the evil from serious consequences. There are always 
meteors in the sky. They do not become planets ; they merely 

flash and expire. So with a sporadic religious notion : it has 
2 



16 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM S. 



not power to create a sect, though it may make a temporary 
commotion. 

In Protestantism, and Romanism, too, despite its despotic 
effort at repression, there are several permanent sects, which 
must be ranked as distinct portions of the one Church, some 
organically divided, some tolerated in the organism itself. 

Christian sects which come to permanence and power are not 
produced by small causes or insufficient causes. They have a 
real reason, they exist because there is no help for it. The 
Church is loath to divide. It struggles against it, it prays 
against it. When at last division comes it is with pangs, and 
after every expedient has failed to prevent it. It does not 
come from oppressions and irritations merely or chiefly. These 
often attend it, and by superficial on-lookers are supposed to be 
the cause, and the division is charged to wickedness. There 
often is wickedness engendered by it, but the babe born, as a 
rule, is a holy thing. It is born of conviction, not of strife. 
Strife goes before and attends it, but down in the depths of 
the soul, in its holiest yearnings, in convictions and conscience, 
is the germ of its life. 

Christianity is a life based on and growing from doctrines. 
Fallible minds are left to find what these doctrines are and 
what the meaning of this wonderful life is. The result is a 
creed or creeds. There is no escape from it. 

Sects grow around and out of these creeds. The accepted 
creed is invested w T ith the sacred ness of divine authority and 
guarded as a holy trust. The interpretation is not infallible. 
Mistakes are made, abuses arise, disputes ensue, innovations are 
attempted, parties are formed, the brotherhood is rent with 
factions. The contending disputants cannot yield if the case 
is one of honest conviction, and if one of conscience they 
cannot keep silent or submit. Counsels are impotent, com- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



17 



promise impossible. They cannot remain together if one must 
dominate the other. Separation, harmful as it is, is the inev- 
itable outcome ; it is a less evil than internal strife, than en- 
forced conformity, than the suppression of the right of private 
judgment and enslavement or bribing or outraging conscience. 
Thus sects are formed. There are good and sufficient reasons 
for them. Each, it may be, retains the great body of essen- 
tial truth. Each may be equally Christian with the other, and 
may be component parts of the greater Church. In the mat- 
ter of dispute perhaps neither is right, but each thinks itself 
right ; possibly out of the struggle truth makes advance. After 
a time, when the fogs of passion have cleared away, and both 
parties, each learning something from the other, have come to 
see more clearly, charity begins its reconciling office, and fra- 
ternity and hearty good-will return. The dispute was sad and 
the result painful, but who dare say that either the one or the 
other was not a necessity growing out of human limitations, 
or that substantial good attainable in no other way was not 
gained ? The children struggled in the womb. Who daresay 
that Augustine did not create a necessity for Pelagius, even 
though the error of the one was not less than that of the other ? 

Edwards must produce a Channing and a Taylor and a Hop- 
kins, and a score of others. Over against Calvin there must 
come a Wesley, as over against Hildebrand there must come 
a Luther. One error is often corrected by another, and the 
two compel the relinquishment of each other and make way for 
nearer approach to the ideal which differs from both ; truth 
was at neither extreme, but in the middle. Each of the great 
sects has had a good reason for its existence, and each has 
helped in some direction. None have reached the goal, but as 
they severally approach it they come nearer together, and by 
these contests, if conducted in a Christian spirit, are helping for- 



18 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



ward the time when, by assimilation, one mistake after another 
being struck away by attrition, the sect lines will, if not wholly 
obliterated, so as that there will be no more sects, be rendered so 
unimportant and indistinct that they will become practically 
one ; but the time is not yet. There is still much honest work 
to be done to bring about that day. Perhaps the goal of ab- 
solute truth and perfect method, where all honest contention 
will cease, will never be reached, but non-essential differences 
will cease to work separations. 

In the truest convictions of large numbers of intelligent 
Christian men ; in the demands of conscience ; in the yet unset" 
tied condition of beliefs ; in the unharmonious and irreconcil- 
able differences of judgment as to the best methods and forms 
of church government ; in order to the greatest efficiency, and 
for the correction of errors both of doctrine and economy, and 
the more speedily to reach harmony and come to the ideal, are 
found the real reasons and the justifying reasons for the exist- 
ence of the different sects. They are not only inevitable, but, 
when animated by the Christian spirit, they increase the efficiency 
of the Church, get more good work out of the body, and are in- 
dispensable to the attainment of the ideal which none of them 
as yet has reached. They are necessary to each other, making 
each better than it would be alone. No greater calamity could 
have happened than their non-existence, and no greater calamity 
could now happen than their obliteration. Their non-existence 
would have guaranteed the sole and perpetual domination of the 
papacy-corrupting and evermore becoming more corrupt, in the 
absence of the exercised right of criticism and dissent. What 
is the lesson history teaches ? 

Let the sects now be abolished and the same effects would 
follow. Instead of advance the plea for unity would soon 
override all investigation; centralization would repress free 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



19 



action ; reaction or unprogressive inaction would remand us 
again to the Dark Ages, or advancing intelligence would out- 
grow the Church and work its overthrow. Freedom, right of 
dissent, attrition of mind with mind, are the conditions of ad- 
vance. Out of this trinal group of causes come sects. It is, 
in the order of God, the only road which, at first working divi- 
sion, at last leads to the only true organic unity — oneness of faith 
and oneness of government, or principles of action — if that ideal 
can ever be reached, which is doubtful. The world is large, and 
its millions are segregated by many tongues, and by local preju- 
dices of one kind and another, and by diverse political notions 
and customs — natural and artificial divisions, which, it is prob- 
able, will always work ecclesiastical separations, rendering the 
parts independent organisms, one only in a higher unity ; but 
so one as to work in perfect harmony and good fellowship. 

There is scarcely a probability that there will ever cease to be 
several influential sects in the same country, represented in the 
larger communities, towns, and cities. It is even doubtful 
whether it is desirable. Mutual recognition and brotherly love, 
avoidance of unnecessary interference, mutual helpfulness, 
hearty co-working, are desirable ; but perhaps we shall each be 
improved, be more and better than we would be, by the presence 
of the other. 

To be Christian at all the ruling thought and purpose must 
be to do right and be right. That is the very essence of a 
Christian spirit. It cannot be surrendered without apostasy. It 
may be possible in regard to some things to agree to disagree and 
yet live in peace without separation. If it be a small matter 
which requires no sacrifice of principle, no personal participa- 
tion in what is conceived to be a mistake or actual wrong, actual 
separation may not be required — simple protest may suffice, or 
silence ; but if it be viewed as a serious wrong, and if remaining 



20 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



in the fellowship of the wrong-doer makes one a participant of it 
and responsible for it. or convicts him in his own conscience that 
he does so become, he must withdraw ; and if there be a multi- 
tude of that way of thinking, and if they flow together and 
form a fellowship of sympathy and co-working along the lines 
of their own convictions of what is right, and what ought to be, 
who can accuse them of sin ? What, under the circumstances, 
ought they to do ? 

Out of these inevitable causes of human limitations and frail- 
ties the great sects have arisen on justifiable grounds. They do 
not necessarily work the sundering or needless distraction of 
the body of Christ. They may, on the contrary, by separation 
preserve the higher unity of spirit, and work together in per- 
fect harmony to the common end of spreading the kingdom 
of God ; and possibly by the separation, unconsciously, they 
may effect a good of purification which never could be attained 
without it. There is reason to believe that this is so. That 
truth is thereby advanced there can be no question. 

The larger sects, which perhaps alone have sufficient grounds 
for real organic disconnection, have become vast bodies, meas- 
ured over large extents, approximating equality of influence and 
active agency. They have each accumulated immense powers 
for good, vast educational and ecclesiastical foundations — 
churches, schools, publishing-furnishings, missionary appli- 
ances, houses and arrangements for the help of the poor and 
unfortunate, and all other benevolences which grow out of 
Christian life and effort; they have their own methods, and un- 
derstand how to work their own machinery so as to bring the 
largest results of usefulness ; by use and training they work with 
the least possible friction and the greatest attainable harmony. 
In the case of any individual discontent the transfer is made easy 
from one fold into another, without serious inconvenience in the 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



21 



case of "the lay communicant, and where conviction requires it in 
the case of the clergy. Surely enforced conformity would be 
a poor and dangerous exchange for this state of facts. Let the 
sects exist in mutual fraternal recognition. Let them emulate 
each other in all good works. Let each be zealous to make its 
agency most efficient ; no harm can come of it, but much good, 
if the unity of the spirit- be preserved. To this end it is not 
necessary to make any compromises or surrenders in matters of 
conviction and conscience; but it is both useful and necessary 
that the pulpit and the press of each sect, while earnestly main- 
taining its own institutions and peculiar doctrines, with what- 
ever of zeal is required, should deal fairly and generously with 
its sister sects ; should preach and teach not only charity but 
joy and reciprocity in the common welfare of all. 

There is reason among these sects for continued contention 
on points of doctrine, but not such as to justify unbrotherliness. 
These differences are diminishing, and will be sure to grow less, 
for truth is one, and every advance is in the direction of unity. 
Meantime let brotherly love continue. The spirit to be culti- 
vated by the sects is one of patience and forbearance. The end 
after which we are all reaching is not yet reached. The Ando- 
ver controversy and the revision contest are healthful symptoms, 
and ought not to cause alarm. The goal is afar, and the ages 
are before us. Only let love reign, and our differences will grow 
less and yet less, and some day, each losing something, all will 
gain every thing. 



22 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL 31ETH0DISMS. 



REASONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF SECTS. 

But while we contend that there are real reasons for the 
existence of all the principal sects, or have been, sufficient to 
justify their existence, we now affirm that real reasons may 
arise when sects which were justifiable in their origin may no 
longer be justified in their separate existence, and when as real 
reasons exist for their reunion, or fusion, if they never were 
united, as once existed for their separation ; and when such 
reasons arise their continuance is an evil of great magnitude, 
and may be a most culpable sin. This is especially true of the 
minor divisions among bodies of a common creed and substan- 
tially common ecclesiasticism. The causes which lead to such 
divisions are often uncontrollable at the time, and seem to pre- 
clude any other outcome but separation. The causes are often 
not radical or fundamental, but local and temporary accidents. 
When time has changed the conditions, if the schism was of a 
small fraction, it should at the earliest possible time, if it have 
not the promise of usefulness, return to the parent stock, and 
should be made welcome and not be subjected to humiliations. 
If the severance was of large fractions, and the causes have been 
removed by time, it becomes the duty of the separate parts to 
harmonize their differences on terms equally honorable to both, 
and especially where evils growing out of the continued sever- 
ance are great and cannot be cured except by removing the 
cause. These are principles of common sense and Christian 
utility which must be patent to all. 

The reason for consolidation when of such a nature as to in- 
volve conscience, that is, such as to demand reunion on the 
ground of its rightness, becomes no less but really more bind- 



UXIoy OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



23 



ing than when it demanded severancy, inasmuch as union is 
more certainly desirable than disunion. The demand of con- 
science arising from clear facts should not be weakened by 
pleas of inexpediency. It can never be expedient to violate 
conscience or expedient to disobey it. It cannot be a matter 
of conscience to remain apart when the reasons which required 
separation do not any longer exist. 



24 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL 1IETH0DISHS. 



REASONS FOR EXISTENCE OF MORE THAN ONE SECT OR CHURCH 
ORGANIZATION IN ANY GIVEN COMMUNITY. 

There is jet one point more of considerable importance 
which should have a brief attention before we take up the 
main subject. If, as we have seen, the Church is a higher 
unity, aggregated of fractional sects, and if there are real and 
sufficient reasons for this, and if there may come reasons for the 
reunion of sundered parts, then arises this question — and it is 
one of great practical moment — " Is there ever need that each 
sect should exist as a separate organism in every community ?" 
Or may this be a point optional and voluntary to be determined 
by expediency ? 

The convictions which make sects are not optional or mere 
matters of will. They cannot be renounced on mere volition. 
Must they always assert themselves in every community irre- 
spective of circumstances? That is, is there a justifiable reason 
that each sect should attempt to maintain its life in every place, 
or may there be good and sufficient reasons why it should not ? 

There is a wide difference between a sectary and a bigot, 
though they are often classed as one and the same. The dis- 
tinction is one which should be observed. A bigot is one who 
is obstinately and blindly attached to an opinion or to a religious 
tenet or ritual, and who is so narrow as to be uncharitable to 
any who may differ from him. It betokens ignorance and an 
unchristian temper of mind, and deserves only reprobation. 
A sectarian is simply a member of a sect holding certain be- 
liefs. He need not be narrow or uncharitable even when in- 
tense. His intensity may be the result of most enlightened 
reflection, and yet broad enough to allow that others possibly 



UmON OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



25 



may have as good or even better reasons for their beliefs ; he, 
while loyal to his own convictions, is charitable to those who 
differ from him. He may be earnest without being obstinate, 
or without the indulgence of improper feeling. A proper feel- 
ing of zeal for what one believes to be right is commendable 
and right, and is consonant with the highest qualities of mind 
and heart. It is no reproach to a man to be a sectarian. It is 
proof of an ignoble, narrow, and ignorant nature to be a bigot. 

It is not necessary that every town should have a Methodist, 
a Presbyterian, an Episcopal, a Congregational, and a Lutheran 
church, and every other church, in it. !Not even if there should 
be some who would become members of each one of these com- 
munions, or who have strong preferences for any one of them, 
or who are so little Christian that they could not worship with 
any other branch than the one preferred, does this constitute a 
reason why that branch should exist there. It may be a good 
church, and yet there may be good reasons why it should not 
exist in a given place — why to attempt to plant it would be 
ill-advised, and possibly really sinful. There may be abundant 
reasons why one and only one of these churches would be 
better than two, or two better than one ; or there may be room 
for all and a justifiable reason for all. It is a case which 
good common sense and Christian prudence must decide. 
These churches, whatever their differences, unless mad with 
judicial blindness or bigotry, recognize each other as holding 
the essentials of faith and as real parts of the Church of God. 
Xor does the fact that any one of these churches may have 
something of good in its doctrines or usages which others exist- 
ing in the place have not make an adequate reason why it 
should exist there. If it would occasion evils of various kinds, 
overbalancing every good it would probably do, then it is better 
it should not be there. Many a hamlet is cursed by a plethora 



26 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



of churches, and it is a safe rule, where the demand for 
any given church in a place not able to support two or more 
churches of variant creeds is merely one of narrow sectarianism, 
to encourage the community to be content with one and to fuse 
their differences in building up one rather than two or more. 
It is easy for purblind zeal for a sect rather than zeal for Christ 
to object, but it does not change the fact. 

If the community is small or the neighborhood sparse and re- 
mote from any church, and is likely to remain so, it is desirable 
there should be one church with sanctuary and Sabbath privi- 
leges, and that there should be a faithful pastor. Only the un- 
devout and careless of moralities and religion will doubt this. 
Each church, zealous for its own doctrine and growth of power, 
might desire to be the one chosen, but it will not pretend that it 
is essential or absolutely important, or so important that if an- 
other is there it should push itself in, even though it should 
create strife and work harm. The case, then, is one which must 
be determined by prudential considerations. Now, what are the 
considerations that ought to have weight with either common 
sense or Christian conscience? Surely not because A., B., or C. 
would be pleased to have his church in the place; not simply to 
have two or more churches ; not because it would spite some 
neighbor ; not simply for sect aggrandizement — none of these 
things. In determining the question there are things to be 
considered. The existence of a church will cost money. Money 
for the edifice, money for a pastor, money for all its operations. 
Money is a trust. "Will it pay ? Ought the people so to be 
burdened ? Will the divided resources keep two parsonages in 
comfort? Will it not beget complaining and hardships and 
strife, and turn many away from rather than to the house of 
God ? These are not unimportant considerations. But we want 
our shibboleth ; yes, but can we afford it at such a price ? An- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



27 



other jxliase of the question comes into view when drafts are 
made on missionary funds to maintain these competing altars. 
Are cases of this kind so rare as not to deserve mention 1 If 
hundreds of places and hundreds of oppressed peoples and suffer- 
ing pastors could speak, what suppose you would be the answer? 

What, then, are the conditions which ought to be determi- 
native of the propriety of establishing a given Church in any 
community, and a second, third, tenth, or any number of places 
of worship, of one or all the denominations ? 

To this we answer, first, an absolute cause for one Church is, 
where no evangelical Church exists in the place or at conven- 
ient distance, or when any Church that may exist utterly fails 
to provide for the spiritual wants of the people. When such 
a case is found, if the people do not themselves make overtures, 
it becomes the duty of some evangelical Church to occupy the 
ground as missionary territory. It is the right of the people 
to have the Gospel, and it is the duty of some branch of the 
evangelical Church to occupy the field. What branch should 
take the initiative, if the place is only sufficient for one con- 
gregation and pastorate, must depend on circumstances. When 
the authorities of some one branch have taken possession and 
have signs of favor and success, as a rule they should not be 
obstructed by interference of some other denomination, but 
should be encouraged, and, if need be, be helped by all. If, 
however, the place is growing and has promise of needing the 
services of more than one pastor and Church, circumstances 
may determine that it would be wise and Christian for others 
to enter, not as rivals and competitors, but as co-workers. 
The circumstances that would call for the multiplication of 
places of worship of diverse creeds are ability to support, suf- 
ficiency of population in immediate prospect, and demands 
arising among the people themselves for the presence among 



28 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM & 



them of churches whose doctrines and methods suit a number 
of the community, or the existence in the community of a large 
unchurched population which might be reached and helped by 
new and somewhat different appliances. 

Where there is sufficient population and sufficient ability to 
support there is a need which, if not supplied, weakens the exist- 
ing Church, and which, when supplied, renders each congrega- 
tion stronger and more flourishing than either would be alone ; 
and this rule holds where the conditions exist for any number 
necessary to meet the demand. Healthy emulation and lov- 
ing co-operation quicken each Church to its best efforts, and 
the harvest responds to the labor. The larger the fallow the 
weaker the aggressive force of the Church cultivating the field. 
Due proportion engenders zeal and develops strength and 
makes growth. An overstock of machinery maintained at op- 
j^ressive and unremunerative expense tends to unhealthy mo- 
tives and to misuse. Excess is expensive and burdensome, and 
some part, or all parts, suffer. These are lessons which Churches 
are slow to learn, bat which they greatly need to learn. Chris- 
tian emulation is tonicful. More and better work is done under 
observation and comparison, and especially when self-preserva- 
tion is in the scale, if the struggle be not too great. 

Before a new church enterprise is started in any place where 
an efficient Church already exists, whether of a doctrinal creed 
differing from the Church existing or of the same creed, the 
matter ought to have serious consideration, and should be de- 
termined on some one of the above grounds. If projected in 
strife, or mere sect pride, or selfish gratification of a few unrea- 
soning persons, whatever of seeming good it may do, in the 
end it is probable the evil will overbalance the good. 
• If some self-denial is required it is wiser and better that it 
should be exercised, and that the spirit of charity and brotherly 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



29 



love should be cultivated, even at the expense of having our 
children brought up under another faith and usages which an 
individual family or a few families do not prefer. No evan- 
gelical Church has such pre-eminence over any other as to make 
an absolute demand for its existence in a place where it must 
tear down in order to build up, or where, to maintain itself, it 
must excite animosities and keep alive the spirit of opposition 
and contention. In any such case both the spirit and meas- 
ures are likely to be so unchristian as to be disastrous to the 
piety of both parties, and in the end disastrous to the cause it- 
self. It is the very thing condemned in 1 Cor. i, 10-18. It 
engenders hate and doubt among unbelievers themselves, and 
without doubt destroys many souls. 

The case becomes much stronger when carried on by the 
expenditure of missionary funds. If people will spend their 
own money for the gratification of mere sectarian feeling to 
the injury of religion, their own and others', the sin is gross 
enough ; or, if not the sin, the motive being good, but the judg- 
ment only at fault, the mistake ; but the appropriation of 
funds gathered by appeals to the Christian benevolence of other 
people, who abhor strife, to the mere propagandism of strife, 
becomes a more heinous offense, and doubly so when these 
funds are in demand in a thousand needy places. 

Sect life is to be preserved only when it is a demand for the 
best development of a community, and when it efficiently min- 
isters to the upbuilding of the kingdom, never to be sought 
merely for the aggrandizement of the sect or for the promotion 
of mere partisan aims. One Church where only one is needed 
is a golden motto ; more than one, only where growing and 
prospective population creates a real demand; co-operation and 
real fusion, merging all differences, w T here there is room but 
for one; loving emulation and generous fellowship, where 



go 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



needs create the demand for two or ten ; any number, as the 
case may be. These rules observed, sect life is the best blood 
of church life. The Church one, the branches many or few, as 
the best conscience determines, unity in multiplicity, and mul- 
tiplicity in unity. 

If these positions be true — and we believe they are true — then 
the Church of God, while one in its deepest essence, may exist 
in many branches without external organic connection. There 
is no absolute reason why the Church should have or aim at 
such unity — why she should not exist as sects. It may be for 
the best that it should be so divided. 

One branch may, on account of language, be German, one 
French, one English, and so throughout the nationalities because 
of convenience. One may be Presbyterian, one Baptist, one 
Lutheran, one Methodist, one Episcopalian, because of even 
minor differences of creed or ecclesiasticism. Other causes 
may exist to lead to similar separation. It may be for the 
greatest good that it should be so. It may also be for the great- 
est good that in a given community only one of these sects 
should be planted. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



SI 



THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO THE UNION OF METH- 

ODISMS. 

I wish now, in the light of these principles, and in the light 
of existing facts, to consider the sects of Methodism, for Meth- 
odism has become a cluster of sects, whether to her credit or 
not, but with special reference to the two great divisions — the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal. 
Church, South. Before the special subject is introduced, how- 
ever, I ask attention to some suggestions with respect to all the 
various branches of American Methodism. 

The sects of Methodism all embrace one system of doctrine, 
differing hardly at all in the expression of any article of the com- 
mon creed. So far as doctrine is concerned they may be said to 
be substantially and as nearly as possible in perfect agreement ; 
with one slight exception they are Arminian in theology.- This 
marks the line of their separation from all the branches of the 
Calvin istic and Calvino-Augustiiiian branches of the Christian 
family, and is such a ground of difference as to make organic 
union with such Churches impossible, and is, therefore, never 
mooted. Radical differences between them and the Arian and 
Pelagian family render it impossible that Methodism should fuse 
with them. On other but equally fundamental grounds, they are 
compelled to remain separate from their Lutheran and Baptist 
brethren. Their doctrinal disagreement with the Protestant 
Episcopal Church is slight, and not sufficient, alone considered, 
to prevent a possible union. The subject has been several times 
slightly agitated, but the differences in other respects are so great 
as scarcely to permit the hope that union can ever be effected — 

at least there is nothing in sight to encourage the expectation of 
3 



32 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



that consummation in the near future. Meantime, with respect 
to all these communions, all Methodisms cultivate cordial rela- 
tions, regarding the grounds of difference, however sufficient to 
prevent fusion, insufficient to preclude loving fellowship and 
sincere co-operation in all Christian work. 

The Methodists divide among themselves into two classes — 
Episcopal and non-Episcopal. This, together with the question 
of lay representation, was the first and has been the chief 
ground of division into separate sects or families, if all Meth- 
odists should be classed as one sect. 

Our English brethren and all the Churches of their planting 
have been strenuously non-Episcopal and remain so, both at 
home and where they have taken root in other countries. Early, 
indeed, in its first organic existence, American Methodism as- 
sumed the Episcopal form of ecclesiasticism, but with a modified 
view of Episcopacy, and not with perfect content. Since 1828 
there have been two Methodisms — Episcopal and non-Episcopal. 
Each division has on various grounds flowered out into several 
branches. We have Episcopal, non-Episcopal, Congregational, 
and Independent Methodists, some twenty-six divisions in all. 
The non-Episcopal branches in our country have not greatly 
flourished, but are not without vigor of life, though obscure and 
local and almost unknown. Of course, organic union of these 
minor branches with the larger and more flourishing Episcopal 
branches cannot be effected except on the surrender of their 
ground of separation, which is hardly to be expected ; hence 
they are not in view in this writing, though were it possible 
for them to come to us they would be hailed with warm wel- 
come. Possibly these minor branches could, if they cannot 
unite with us, wisely consolidate and increase their power for 
usefulness. This has already taken place in the provinces, where 
the united branches are now powerful and greatly benefited by 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



38 



the union. The Episcopal branch has divided into five distinct 
Episcopal Methodisms, the Methodist Episcopal Church being 
the original stock ; the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist 
Episcopal Zion Church, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal 
Church of America. The first named, and first in order of exist- 
ence, includes whites and blacks ; the second is almost exclusively 
white; the third, fourth, and fifth are exclusively colored. 

Recently measures are beinsr taken to unite the three colored 
branches into one, with promise of success. This is a consum- 
mation devoutly to be wished on their own account and in the 
general interests of their race. It, if it might occur, would 
partly do away with an evil of great magnitude among them, 
the evil of several Churches of the same name and faith in com- 
munities not able to support one, and the meaningless and 
damaging strifes which always spring out of such conditions — 
an evil which has no compensating good. The magnitude . of 
the evil can only be proximately conceived of by an acquaint- 
ance with the facts. It is no uncommon tiling to find a little 
hamlet of a hundred or less colored people with not less than 
three starving little churches, one Baptist and two, sometimes 
three, different sects of Methodists, each seeking to establish 
itself by pulling down the other, and neither scarcely knowing 
any other ground of difference than the names by which they 
are called, the strife not unfrequently maintained with a fury 
proportioned to the ignorance which foments it. 

The union of these bodies w r oulcl make of three weak bodies 
one really strong and influential Church of nearly a million com- 
municants, and would, by enabling them to concentrate their 
forces, improve all the conditions for useful and successful 
Christian work — rescuing means which are now wasted in strife 
for advance and improvement in all lines. 



84 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



It is just to say that these three Episcopal branches largely 
support themselves, receiving almost nothing from either the 
Methodist Episcopal Church or the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, or any other of the sects. Their success, depending so 
almost entirely on themselves, in founding schools and build- 
ing churches, and in rearing a respectable membership and a 
ministry many of whom rank high in ability, and in conducting 
all their affairs, is proof of 'their ability, when united, to make 
a well-ordered branch of the Christian Church. When duly 
considered in connection with the result in our branch of. the 
colored work, on which we have spent many millions, it gives 
rise to the doubt whether our well-meant methods have been on 
the whole always supremely wise. 

The question emerges at this point, "What should be the re- 
lations of the white Methodisms to the colored Methodisms? 
and along with it, What should be the relations of the colored 
members of our Methodism to the united colored Episcopal 
Methodism ? It is a delicate subject, and one which can 
scarcely be discussed without undue passion, especially among 
some of our white brethren; and yet it is a subject which 
must be discussed at the risk of being misunderstood and ma- 
ligned. 

We begin with the first division of the question, What 
should be the relations of the white Episcopal Methodisms to 
the united colored Episcopal Methodism if it should come to be 
an actualized fact ? Would it be practicable and a thing to be 
desired to bring them into organic unity with us, or if not that 
to secure such federative relations as would make available to 
them the friendship and help of the stronger brotherhood \ 
At present no helpful relations exist. Is it the outcome of the 
wisest Christian statesmanship that this state of things should 
continue ? 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



35 



There are here two questions which must be considered 
separately. To the first, Is organic unity between the two 
bodies practicable, or, if practicable, is it desirable ? it must be 
obvious to any reflecting person that a categorical yes or no 
is not the answer that should be returned. It can only be 
answered in the light of another question, What would be for 
the greatest good? Only that can be desirable, or the thing # 
which of right ought to be, which will work to the great- 
est good, and will be attended with the least possible evil, 
when there is no absolute principle which determines the 
answer. 

This is a case of that kind. There is no absolute determin- 
ing principle. The bodies may remain separate without sin, 
unless it can be shown clearly that their organic union would 
be promotive of the greatest good. That, then, is the point to 
be considered. The answer will demand candor and wisdom. 
Environments must be taken into the account. If the contin- 
ued separation only arises from pride or prejudice or any un- 
christian feeling, that determines that it is a sin. If it may be 
for the reason that organic unity, all things considered, would 
not be for the best, then it may not only not be a sin to re- 
main separate, but it would be a wrong to effect union if it 
were possible. 

We desire to present two views, either of which, it seems to 
us, might be a practical solution of the difficult problem, or, if 
not that, may lead to something better than either. 

The first view we present is that the two bodies should re- 
main separate under existing facts, or that, whatever may be 
wise for the future, the time has not come for organic unity, if 
it shall ever come. The reasons we allege in support of this 
view are the following : 

First, negatively ; and we give emphasis to this, not be- 



So 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



cause of mere race distinction, or because one of the parties is 
not equal in the kingdom of God to the other, and therefore 
should not be associated with them in the same Church. This 
is never the ground for the existence of separate sects. In this 
case it has no more place than in any other. 

We proceed on the theory of a union of all the colored Epis- 
copal Method isms in one great organism. This we believe ad- 
visable and imperative on the ground that there 'is no good 
reason, no insurmountable reason, of doctrine or economy to 
prevent it, but more especially on the ground that strife and 
friction are inevitable without it. This we know to be a fact, 
and in the nature of things it cannot be avoided. Each divis- 
ion, while they remain apart, will feel called upon to push its 
occupancy of every hamlet where it can gain a foothold. The 
outcome will be as it has been, two, three, or four little factions, 
each seeking to tear the other down that it may build itself up. 
The result must be loss of piety to the contestants and weakness 
and impoverishment to all. Union would minister peace and 
strength. The dissevered parts coming together would make 
a Church of power for good, would give respectability, and 
would, by union of support, develop harmony and economy of 
means which would improve all operations of the body. The 
effect could not be other than healthful. 

The only remaining friction would arise from our Method- 
ism. This would be healed by merging our members, lay and 
clerical, into the great united body if they were favorable 
thereto. There would then be no waste of energy in friction ; 
all reason for strife would at once cease. Ephraim would not 
envy Judah, and Judah would cease to vex Ephra'in. This we 
believe ought to be clone, and done as speedily as possible if 
something better cannot be done. 

The reasons for this latter position we now proceed to men- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



37 



tion, and also to indicate the method by which it can be 
brought about in a way equally honorable and most beneficent 
to all. 

So long as our colored brethren remain with us the elements 
of strife with the other colored Methodisms remain ; and, should 
they unite, remain not only with unabated but with increasing 
force and augmented fury. The two must continue to strive 
side by side. Is it right ? If so, what is the sufficient reason ? 
Is it wise for us to appropriate money to perpetuate, this un- 
seemly and harmful warfare ? Is there not a better way % 

This is one side of the evil. There is another which is rapidly 
coming into view which may prove to be even more disastrous. 
We do well to be forewarned. These members of ours, for rea- 
sons which will grow in force, do not remain with us without 
working evils to us that may become disturbing and disastrous, 
which would be averted if they should unite with their colored 
brothers, and this not by fault of either party. May these 
evils be averted ? and if so, ought they so to be ? 

I name two of them. We have bestowed vast amounts of 
money on these our dependent brethren. There w T as good rea- 
son for it. The help was needful, and has produced good 
fruits. But may we not, nevertheless, have produced an evil by 
our largesses which in the future may work damagingly to 
those whom we aim to help, by creating a feeling of depend- 
ence which will mar instead of promoting their manhood ? 
Will the longer continuance of the same policy develop the 
best type of Christians ? When we look at the branches which 
have grown without us we confess to a doubt. The result is 
not entirely satisfactory. We have built churches, founded 
schools, rendered invaluable help in many ways, but may it 
not be that it would be better now, with this setting up, that 
these children of ours should be allowed to care for themselves ? 



38 



UNION- OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



Might not a better type of manhood come to them than will 
if the j are kept longer in leading-strings? Let the question be 
studied in the light of what has come to those Churches who 
have learned to walk alone. The comparison is full of sugges- 
tions, and it will not do to judge it by partial representations 
which are often misrepresentations. 

Then there is yet another aspect of this subject that wise fore- 
thought Will need to consider, and it should be pondered with 
care ; it is this : these brothers of ours, while subsisting on our 
bounties, will not be content to take inferior rank. This is. a 
delicate subject, but wise statesmanship demands that it should 
be handled. It cannot be repressed. Some of these brothers are 
equals in talent with their white brothers. They are not slow 
to discover that. It would not be strange if they are prompt to 
assert it. They do now declare it, and who shall say nay ? 

Out of this gratifying fact — for it is a gratifying fact — it shows 
that we have not wrought in vain ; that our "brother in black," 
with opportunity, may be equal to his white brothers, and that 
some of the former will surpass many of the latter. But out of 
this comes another fact ; it is here : these brothers demand rec- 
ognition. They ask and claim it with persistence, that they shall 
not be discriminated against in the high offices of the Church. 
It is attempted to pacify them with the assurance that when they 
shall develop men who will be qualified to fill these positions 
their claim will be recognized and they will be elected to the 
coveted places. Is this a wise or fair putting of the case? It is 
implied that want of the qualified man is the only impediment in 
the way. Do we not know that this is not true ? Why, then, 
shall we be insincere ? Who among us believes that a colored 
man could be elected general superintendent, for instance, if a 
man every way qualified to fill that office could be found ? Nay, 
I will put it yet stronger — if a man better qualified than any of 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



30 



his competitors could be found, who believes that it would be 
a wise thins: to do? Who believes that it would tend to the 
greatest peace and welfare of the Church ? The same is true of 
other high offices. Why, then, shall we not recognize the fact 
as a thing impracticable and not to be thought of? Who does 
not know that the obliteration of the color line is not within 
our power? There are now white Conferences and there are 
colored Conferences, white Churches and colored Churches, 
white pastors for white Churches and colored pastors for col- 
ored Churches. It is beyond our power to make it otherwise, 
and it will remain so. The attempt to change it would only 
breed confusion, distraction, strife, self-destruction. We know 
that this is so unavoidably. ISov is it because we are not 
Christian. It is in the force of environments, or, deeper still, 
in the nature of things. 

Growing out of these insurmountable facts might it not be wiser 
and better that our colored brethren should become connected 
with an organization which would oppose none of these impedi- 
ments to their highest advancement? Let any one without 
prejudice calmly look at all the facts, and can he doubt that 
the way to the greatest good with the least attendant evil may 
lie in the direction of separation and a possible organic union 
of the colored people into one great Methodism if it can be 
peacably effected ? 

That being effected, not only would the way open to them to 
their best development, but the way would open to their white 
brethren to a genuine and undisturbing fraternity, and to modes 
of helpfulness which cannot exist while things remain as they 
are. Would it be a wrong to the colored people ? In what 
way ? What right of theirs would be infracted ? What injury 
would they suffer? On the other hand, would it not improve 
their condition and open up to them a better future ? Of course, 



40 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



a union of these bodies among themselves would' require wis- 
dom and honorable dealing with all the parties in the interest. 

One no inconsiderable effect in the interest of the race problem 
might ensue. Wholly disconnected from entanglements with a 
portion of whites, who are mainly in the North, out of which 
entanglements come sectional strifes, they might find sympathy 
and friendship with their immediate neighbors, and public wel- 
fare might thus be promoted and sectional feeling allayed. 

Among us an evil of no small magnitude, exciting scandal and 
threatening much mischief and denominational disgrace, would 
cease : I name it with mortification the alleged fact ; and pos- 
siblv not without foundation of using these innocent suffragists 
for personal promotion. Who has not heard and reddened 
with shame at the intimation of the bare possibility ? however 
groundless the allegation and slanderous the charge. 

Might it not be better for all if an adjustment could be made 
that would separate the races in snch way as to prevent the 
evils which come from the imperfect union which exists, and 
which would unite them upon a higher and truer plane of union 
which could work no evil to either ? 

Free the subject from all other considerations than the simple 
question, What would be for the best good of all the interests 
involved — the good of our colored brethren, the good of our 
white brethren, the good of general welfare, the good of God's 
glory ? — it seems to me that it ought to be possible to wise men, 
with guaranteed divine help, to make such adjustments as will 
secure these ends in greater measure than at present exists, and, 
whether or not, it is certainly Christian to make the effort. 

A sine qua non is that the aim be simple, and that the 
effort be prosecuted with sole reference to it. Prejudice and 
passion and all taint of selfishness must be allowed no place. 
Lifted out of these turbid elements into the serene heights of an 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METUODISMS. 



41 



absolute and supreme desire to secure the greatest glory of God 
and the best good of man, now and for the ages, despite the 
difficulties of the problem its solution will be wrought out. 

What the relations of these bodies should be if separated into 
distinct organisms will be not a difficult problem. It will re- 
solve itself into the simple question, How shall the stronger help 
the weaker 1 A question of method. If the spirit be right it 
will not fail to find the right method. 

Interdenominational comity among sects which differ in creed 
and methods of church life demands only mutual love and non- 
interference. The same would be true in this case to a larsre 

o 

degree, except that, as co-denominations of the same faith and 
general economy, separated only on race lines, an adjustment 
should be made securing sympathy and help from the stronger 
to the weaker, in manners and ways agreed upon by members 
of the same family. 

There are, it may be, those among us who will insist that 
there are no such impediments as here assumed to organic 
union between us and colored Methodism ; that, in fact, 
there is no good reason for the separation; that unchristian 
prejudice alone makes the demand. Is this true? Take the 
question already supposed, Is it practicable to have a colored 
general superintendent to preside over white Conferences, as a 
condition of the union with Episcopal colored Methodism % We 
unhesitatingly affirm that the thing is'impracticable, not on the 
ground of prejudice, but on the ground of Christian prudence — 
that the attempt to do it would be suicidal. One immediate ef- 
fect would be a disruption of the Church. There is not a white 
Conference in which it would not breed dissatisfaction, tumult, 
rebellion. The only way to avert this would be to restrict the 
administration of the colored bishop to colored Conferences. 
To effect this a new law would have to be made which would 



42 



UNION- OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



require a change of the restrictive rule by the process under 
which alone that change can be made, since it would be an in- 
fraction of the general superintendency guaranteed and required 
to be preserved by the restriction and thus placed out of the 
power of the General Conference. 

There is probably a small fraction in the ministry who may 
be ready for the measure and a few in the laity, but the number 
cannot be considerable. The agitation itself could do nothing 
but harm, and the accomplished fact would be the saddest fact 
in our church life, and one of the most calamitous events that 
could befall Christianity itself in the strifes which would in- 
evitably follow. In view of these facts organic unity with the 
colored Episcopal Metliodisms is a question not even to be 
mooted, and in fact is not mooted ; and for the same reason the 
election of a colored bishop from among our own colored con- 
stituents is a thing not to be regarded as among near or remote 
possibilities unless the union can be effected on a plan which 
separates the two parts in some such way as at present exists. 

It is fair that this should be understood by our colored breth- 
ren, so that they can determine intelligently whether it is 
best for them to remain in connection with us, or better to as- 
sociate themselves with a Church which offers no such impedi- 
ments to their just and legitimate aspirations. It cannot be 
right or Christian that, for any reason, they should be beguiled 
with false hopes or implied promises which cannot be fulfilled, 
or even be attempted to fulfill, without serious evils to the 
Church. If, with a full understanding of the case, they prefer 
to remain with us in peace as they are, abandoning the expecta- 
tion of the preferments which they desire and for which they 
are indicating a perfectly legitimate disposition to contend, the 
Church will continue to regard them as brothers beloved and 
administer for and over them in every respect as she does for 



UNI OX OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



43 



all her children. If in view of the embarrassments to their ad- 
vancement which arise, not from prejudice, but from providen- 
tial causes beyond her control, they should choose to associate 
themselves with brethren where no such providential impedi- 
ments exist, then it would be for the Church to make such 
arrangements as would be helpful to their welfare in their new 
relations. 

If we abandon the idea of organic unity with colored Episco- 
pal Methodisms as impracticable the question of, What relations 
shall the two bodies sustain to each other ? remains ; and should 
our colored brethren choose to unite with them, the question 
remains, What would be our duty to them when they separate 
from us ? Manifestly these are two different and important ques- 
tions, and upon them w^e venture some suggestions. 

The relations which might exist between us and our sister- 
Church, if in any respect different from the mere comity and 
good-will which exists between all denominations of Christians, 
would of course be such as by mutual agreement might be ar- 
ranged. As Churches of the same genesis, name, and creed they 
should be those of close friendship and good fellowship, and, if 
agreeable to the weaker body, those of special helpfulness in 
every way possible that might be agreed upon. That is what 
the Christian spirit would require. With respect to those of 
our own constituents who should feel called upon to go into 
the union the separation from us should be in mutual good-w T ill 
and cordial friendship, as resulting from providential causes 
which make the separation one for the best good of all. It 
should be secured that their union should be on terms of honor- 
able recognition and equality with all the other contracting 
parties. The properties which they have acquired through us for 
church and educational purposes should go with them as their 
dower. A proper proportion of them should be guaranteed 



44 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



positions of rank with those of the other Churches. They should 
not go from us poor, but, as compared with their state when 
we came to their help, they should carry with them more 
wealth of equipment than any of those with whom they become 
united. These are matters which it ought not to be difficult to 
arrange. 

The separation, we well understand, could not be effected 
without pain and sorrow. A union cemented by mutual sym- 
pathies and sufferings is not easily dissolved. No reason short 
of the greatest good should be deemed sufficient to warrant the 
sacrifice. But if the time has come when the greatest good de- 
mands it, then it ought to be effected, and it should be the aim 
of all to bring it about in a manner the least distressing pos- 
sible, and the most creditable possible to the intelligence and 
piety of all concerned. If there will necessarily be evils of pain 
attending it, it becomes us to set over against these the evils 
which we foresee will be sure to ensue if it do not take place. 
Let the subject have fair and Christian consideration, and let 
that course be adopted which seems wisest and best, and what- 
ever the outcome may be we will be saved the guilt of in- 
curring evils that might have been, if not wholly avoided, at 
least lessened. 

Still, it is asked on what ground, if not mere prejudice, can 
we insist on the wisdom of union between the two white Method- 
isms, and of separation between the white and colored Method- 
isms. We answer, that precisely the same reasons may exist for 
both positions : the greatest good and the abatement of serious 
evils. Union in the one case might secure the greatest good. 
Separation, in the other case, might secure the greatest good. 
It is not a case of prejudice in the slightest degree ; but, one and 
simple, it is that the greatest good and the avoidance of mani- 
fold evils demand it. If this is so — and we have pointed out the 



UXIOX OF EPISCOPAL METIIOBISMS. 



45 



proofs that it is so — then the reasons for separation might be 
absolute and sufficient, and a wrong might be done in the attempt 
to embarrass the proposed action by alleging prejudice as its cause. 
If action on the ground of prejudice is unchristian — and we 
believe it is — and as such should be condemned by all, it is no 
less unchristian to ascribe proposed action to prejudice when 
the sufficient reason is found for it in the mere consideration 
of the greatest good. Hinderance to the greatest good by an 
appeal to prejudice is as much a wrong as any other wrong 
done by the mere prompting of prejudice, and a much greater 
wrong when the highest interests are put in peril thereby, and 
especially when the party against whom the alleged prejudice 
exists is made to suffer the injury. If the greatest good of the 
colored race would be promoted by the proposed change, and if 
manifold evils now existing would thereby be remedied, and 
more especially yet if prospective evils of a serious kind to those 
who have constantly proved themselves to be their friends 
would thereby be averted, the proposed change ought to be 
made, not simply on the ground of expediency, but on the 
highest ground of Christian principle. The only thing in- 
volved, and the only thing to be had in view, ought to be, 
What does the greatest good require? That settled, duty is 
plain. We are not able to see that any evil would ensue from 
the separation which cannot be averted by wise adjustment. 
We do see that much existing and more threatening evil would 
be averted thereby. We cannot see that any good would be 
hindered under the separation wisely arranged. We do see 
that much good would be secured thereby. On this ground 
alone we advocate the wisdom of the measure if a better cannot 
be devised. 

That their union with us was once a need no one questions. 
That we have been helpful to them no one questions. That 



46 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METH0D1SMS. 



we are still under obligation to help them no one disputes. It 
is simply a question, How can we best help them and avoid 
evils which, have grown up and others that are threatening? 
It is assumed that their union with us is still the only way. 
We have shown reasons for the doubt. The reasons no one can 
gainsay. The reasons point out, not that we must forsake 
them, but that we must adopt methods which changed condi- 
tions demand for their help. 

It will be insisted that if they part from us and assume an 
autonomy of their own they will degenerate ; that they need us 
to hold them up and to befriend them against their enemies ; 
that, in fact, we are so their only friends that they cannot 
be trusted apart from our care. The facts once justified this 
assumption. They do not any longer support it. They have 
become able to go alone. They furnish the proof that without 
us they can develop into as sturdy a manhood as with us. 
What they want is the friendship of the white race to protect 
them in their rights, and means to develop their educational 
institutions, and encouragement in every way to elevate them- 
selves. All this can be secured to them without union with us. 

If the union provokes friction among themselves and hostil- 
ity among their neighbors, and other forms of evil of which 
there is abundant proof, it is better for them that it should be 
severed ; and on this ground alone it is advocated ; no, not on 
this ground alone, but on this ground and additionally on the 
ground that it is corrupting to us, as a means of promoting 
schemes of personal ambition. 

I have been thus frank in stating these points that due at- 
tention may be given to them. It will give pain ; I am sorry 
for it. It will excite displeasure ; this is still a greater grief. 
We must nevertheless look at the case. 

I stated that there were two views in my mind which I wished 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



47: 



to offer ; the second view presents a possible practicable scheme 
of union between the colored and white branches.. On the 
whole I prefer the second. 

The two tilings to keep steadily in view are what is right,, 
which is equivalent to what is best, and what is practicable, and 
this reduces at last to one thing, since only what is best is 
practicable to Christian men. The interests involved are those 
of the Church and those of our colored brethren ; none of us 
would separate them. None would consent to any thing that 
would compromise either. 

If our colored brethren should agree to a union among them- 
selves, thus healing all their difficulties, and if they should desire 
to become one with us, might it not after all be possible to unite 
into one still greater Church in which all Episcopal Methodisms 
should become consolidated ? 

The perfect ideal of a union without distinction of color we 
have seen is absolutely impracticable. There are two even with 
us in the best unity we can attain, and yet we are one. Why not 
an all inclusive union and yet the same provisional separation — 
colored Conferences and white Conferences, colored pastors 
for colored Churches and white pastors for white Churches, 
colored bishops for colored Conferences and white bishops for 
white Conferences, one Church for all ? 

The only change in the organic law that would be necessary 
would be a provision so to distribute Episcopal service as that 
our colored bishops should, as now in the colored Churches, be 
restricted to the colored Conferences over which they now pre- 
side, restricting the services of the white bishops in the same way. 
The restrictive rule might in the way provided be so altered 
as to permit this arrangement. 

A chief embarrassment would be thus overcome and no wrong 
done to any. If this might be done all the Churches in the 



48 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



several Method isms would become Churches of one Method- 
ism, and would fall in the Conferences in whose bounds they 
are — the colored into colored Conferences and the white into 
white Conferences. This would remove all frictions of division 
in the Churches and consolidate the little starving Churches in 
the same locality into one. 

If this might be it would remain to provide for the General 
Conference and its work. Might not this be satisfactorily ar- 
ranged ? Why not both colors meet in the same place, at the 
same time, and constitute one body. If not, why not ? 

In all the work of the body, except elections, let them de- 
liberate and act together and unite in making laws for the regu- 
lation and ordering of the Church, so that precisely the same rules 
and regulations should be made for all to be governed thereby, 
and the exact unity of the body be preserved. In the elections 
let the colored delegates act separately and elect all the officers 
to be assigned work among themselves, and the white delegates 
all the officers to do work among them. This would be just and 
not difficult. 

With respect to general societies, missionary, church extension, 
education, and freedmen, let each be represented, and in the sec- 
retaryships, each officer to work and live among his own people. 

The Board of Bishops would comprise all the bishops, colored 
and white having their meeting together, so that all should have 
the benefit of the review of the work, and the administration 
thus be preserved in unity and harmony. 

This would open all opportunities of advancement and posi- 
tion alike and equally to both sections, and would discriminate 
against none, and would subject none to just reason of complaint, 
and it would effectually prevent any, if the temptation were 
offered, from seeking personal ends by courting the suffrages 
of any by improper methods, and place none at disadvantage. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



49 



If this would insure more helpfulness to our colored 
brothers, which is the chief thing to be aimed at, it seems to 
me it might be practicable. The chief embarrassment would 
arise from the size of the General Conference. Would that 
be absolutely insurmountable ? If the colored Churches 
should not unite among themselves, and not unite with us, and 
if our colored members should prefer to remain with us, then 
why not the plan here proposed be adopted with respect to 
them? 

This arrangement would not completely abolish the color line, 
which nature has established and which is therefore beyond our 
control, but it would be an approach to it, and the nearest ap- 
proach possible, and would leave no just ground of complaint. 
It would impose no concessions and no discriminations which 
are unreasonable in view of the interests sought to be secured. 
It would unite the two races into closer bonds, and it would 
not infringe upon natural limitations in a manner which would 
awaken just resistance or needless irritations. While it would 
provide for the separation of the congregations as an unover- 
comable necessity it would open the most effectual way for real 
friendly and brotherly relations. Further than this it is im- 
practicable to go even for so desirable a thing as organic unity. 

One of these methods, or something analagous, seems to 
me to be the most Christian way of meeting the demands upon 
us. If these suggestions shall not seem feasible, but shall 
open the way to something better, their aim will be reached. 
Let us patiently seek what will be for the greatest good and 
avoid passion, and we will find the way, if not now, then to- 
morrow. 

The adoption of either of these methods would free the 
united body or the separate bodies from the damaging friction 
which now exists, and would inflict no unchristian discrimina- 



50 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



tions. The latter would possibly secure, if it might be deemed 
practicable, the greatest benefit to those who are in the greatest 
need. All the benefits of mutual contact would be secured 
alike, and on precisely the same grounds, to whites and 
colored. 

The General Conference and general committees would re- 
main precisely as they now are, except in the. matter of elections, 
and this slight change would open all the avenues to advance- 
ment and promotion in a way that would occasion no resistance 
or disturbance of any kind. It would place both sections on 
precisely the same level. 

In any event, whatever the settlement of the delicate and diffi- 
cult problems, it must be done on Christian principle — that of 
seeking the greatest good as the thing one and simple to be 
aimed at. On this high plane of principle the Church should 
act with perfect freedom, in calm, dispassionate judgment, neither 
beguiled by alluring persuasion nor terrorized by threats. No 
calamity can come from doing right. No advantage can accrue 
from doing wrong. Neither overconservatism nor frenzied 
fanaticism should control the decision. The road to safety 
lies in neither extremes, but as in every case is the via media 
of practical good sense, making concessions where principle is 
not involved and where wise and beneficent ends are thereby to 
be secured. An attempt to attain all that extravagance of desire 
might demand is the sure way to lose all that conserving good 
sense would grant. Let us not be alarmed by threats, come 
from what quarter they may, white or colored, but, aiming at the 
right, go forward in the fear of the Lord. All will not be 
pleased whatever may be done, but, doing right, God will be 
pleased, and all whose opinions or feelings are worth considering 
will acquiesce. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



51 



REASONS FOR ORGANIC UNION BETWEEN THE METHODIST EPISCO- 
PAL CHURCH AND THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 

I come now to consider the subject of organic union between 
the two great branches of Episcopal Methodism, the Methodist 
Episcopal and the Methodist Episcopal, South, Churches. The 
discussion will formulate itself about the question, Ought these 
two Methodisms become organically one ? It will be my effort 
to show reasons why they should so become. 

Before assigning these reasons it will be proper and helpful 
to delay a moment upon these three points : (a) the reason for 
discussing the question now or at all ; (h) things which should 
be excluded from the discussion, and (c) the spirit which should 
characterize the treatment of the question. 

On the first of these points we affirm that the question de- 
mands discussion for the reason that the present relations of 
these bodies is not satisfactory, and for the further reason that 
the question of re-adjustment is mooted and will not quiet with- 
out suitable consideration. There are thousands, many of whom 
are among the wisest and best people in and out of the two 
Churches, who believe that their separation is a real evil of 
great magnitude. The reasons for this belief should be ex- 
pressed and considered. If they are real the evil should be 
remedied ; if they are delusions that ought to be shown. Many 
things already spoken and written demonstrate the importance 
of discussion. 

On the second point, things which should be excluded from 
the discussion, we have this to say in general : Every thing should 
be excluded which is not essential to the right consideration of 
the single question, Ought the organic union take place? All 



52 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



needless irritations which tend to separation rather than union 
should be excluded. The question is, What is duty now ? The 
separation took place forty-eight years ago. Nearly half a cent- 
ury has elapsed since the occurrence. All the actors have passed 
away from the earth. Almost the entire Church then living are 
now dead. The occasion of the separation no longer exists. 
The event was universally regretted at the time as a calamity 
which it was impossible to aver. For the half century the two 
Churches have existed as distinct bodies, at first with much fric- 
tion and angry contention, and, doubtless, provocations on each 
side. In recent years there has been a growing feeling of 
fraternity and questioning whether the separation should longer 
continue. That is the position now. 

Is there any reason in considering that question for opening 
old wounds ? We confess to the feeling that there is not. Why 
stir the smoldering embers? Why recite a sad story of events 
which occurred before we were born and which belong to a 
by-gone age ? Is it necessary ? Is it wise ? What demand is 
there for it ? What good can come of it ? Is there any griev- 
ance to be remedied by it? Will the recital put us in better 
temper for the solution of present duty ? It seems to me that 
its only tendency will be to obstruct and work discord and renew 
alienations which are now vanishing away. Our fathers were 
honest, brave, true men. They could not agree. Shall we be 
more likely to agree ? If not, why renew a strife the occasions 
of which no longer exist. 

The simple question with us is, What is duty now? That is 
a question, and it is a question which as Christian men we are 
compelled to ask. It is a question of duty which may not be 
pushed aside by mere volition. We stand to-day in the presence 
of the facts of to-day ; we are great Christian bodies existing in 
separation. The simple question is, Is it right, considering all 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM'S. 



53 



the attendant circumstances, that we should now and longer so 
exist? Our fathers may have made mistakes, may have fallen 
into improper tempers, may have used improper words and 
done improper things. Considering the history, and taking into 
account human frailties, it was perhaps impossible that it should 
have been otherwise. They are now beyond our power to rem- 
edy. Is it wise to indulge in recriminations or recitals that con- 
fuse and anger us ? or may we let the dead sleep ? 

With respect to the spirit or temper in which the question 
should be considered I can only say what all of us must feel 
it should be, one of calm, sincere conscientiousness, free from 
all passion, as under the immediate inspection of God. The in- 
terests involved are sacred and great, reaching forward through 
the ages. There is room for difference of judgment. There 
will be opportunity for bitterness along with dissent. An un- 
wise or unkind word or allusion will create irritation. It is to 
be hoped that we are Christian enough to avoid with studious 
care every thing of the kind. 

Possibly it may be impracticable after the most sincere effort 
to reach an immediate adjustment. The effort to find what 
duty is, conducted with the right spirit, will in any event pro- 
mote our personal self-respect and commend us to the whole 
brotherhood of Christianity, and cannot fail to meet the ap- 
proval of God. If we succeed the ages will bless us; if we fail 
we will be free from guilt. 

In this temper, believing that the consideration of the sub- 
ject is an urgent demand of the hour, and omitting all reference 
to the past, I purpose, in the fear of God, and with sincere de- 
sire to help to peace and the greatest good, to set forth reasons 
for the reunion of the severed branches. Whatever else shall 
characterize the writing, I am determined there shall be no bit- 
terness in it, and am sure that its aim is simple and pure. I 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



indulge the hope that if any parties interested in the matter dis- 
cussed should deem what is written of sufficient importance to 
demand the attention of a notice they will come to the discus- 
sion in the same spirit. We may differ in view — this is inevi- 
table ; need we differ in spirit ? If we shall be able to preserve 
the temper of love and simplicity of aim comparison of views 
may enable us to reach conclusions which, on the whole, though 
requiring some surrenders made possible by the mutual service 
we shall be able to render each other, will be satisfactory to all, 
or, if not that, an improvement on the present. 

To the question, What is the duty of the hour with respect to 
the organic unity of the two bodies? there are three possible 
views : first, that organic unity is impracticable, and therefore 
they should remain as they are ; second, that some adjustment 
other than that which at present exists should be sought, but 
not organic unity ; third, that the two bodies should unite and 
become one. 

These three views are held with equal honesty and pertinacity 
by large numbers for each, both among the ministers and lay- 
men in each body. The difference cannot be ascribed to mere 
prejudice or passion or volition. There are sufficiently strong 
reasons for each view to allow of purity of conviction in each 
case, and yet only one of the views can be correct. Which is 
correct cannot be determined by vote or pertinacity merely, but 
must be by the stronger reasons discoverable by intelligent com- 
parisons. Thus all great questions are settled and differences 
are overcome. 

1. In favor of remaining as we are it is alleged that both 
branches have greatly prospered since the separation, and espe- 
cially more recently. The allegation is unquestionably true, 
and were there no other facts to be considered it would consti- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



55 



tute a strong ground for continued severance ; but other facts 
must be taken into the account. These will appear when we 
come to state the reasons for union. It may appear that there 
is ground to believe that were we united some serious evils now 
existing would disappear and still larger usefulness of the 
united bodies be secured, which, if true, constitutes an un- 
answerable argument for the union. That God has not for- 
saken us, but, on the contrary, has continued to bless and pros- 
per us beyond measure despite our separation, may well excite 
our gratitude ; but that his blessing would become less were we 
united is not a fail' inference. 

2. In favor of continued disunion it is further alleged that 
united the Church would be inconveniently large and unwieldy, 
and in danger of becoming corrupted in various ways — that 
great concentration of power is always hazardous. There is 
plausibility in the statement, enough to give it force ; but must 
we accept its implications ? Is separation on the mere ground 
of largeness a defensible position, especially when we take into 
the account evils which inevitably ensue ? The absolute pre- 
dominance of one sect in such manner and degree as to enable 
it to tyrannize over conscience is dangerous; but is this a case 
of the kind ? Must the kingdom of God forever be broken into 
contending sects simply on the ground that unity is dangerous ? 

Against this view we allege that union is to be sought be- 
cause in union is strength and in disunion is weakness, and 
because disunion without sufficient difference engenders cause- 
less strife, and brings disgrace on the Christian name and cause, 
as such, with many other evils. It is alleged that these can 
be provided against by a geographical division. Were this 
possible it might in part remove the evil ; but neither party 
will consent to this. They each insist that they shall have the 
freedom of the world ; but this given, competition and conten- 



56 UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 

tion become inevitable. It is not in the power or wisdom of 
man to prevent it. United, the ground of contention and its 
attendant evils ceases ; remaining two, it must be perpetual. 
It is said, Why not live side by side, like other Christian 
bodies ? The answer is plain ; different families exist apart 
without feuds and in harmony ; the same family cannot exist 
in severance without strife, because nature and providence in- 
tends them to be united; but if they could dwell together in 
harmony, it, for many reasons that will appear, is better that 
they should be united. It is the chief object of this paper to 
state these reasons. 

3. It is alleged that the union of the bodies would render the 
General Conference so large as to be unwieldy and in every 
way inconvenient. To this it is answered, the remedy is pro- 
vided in the organic law by reducing the ratio of representa- 
tion if at any time it should become necessary, or by other 
methods at easy command. When providential occasions arise 
which demand new adjustment methods will not be wanting. 
If faithful to her mission the time is not remote when the 
Church will comprise millions where it now numbers thou- 
sands. Will division become a dernier ressort, or may she still 
retain her unity and devise measures for her new and ever- 
growing needs % 

4. It is said, and with show of reason, that the time must come 
when there will be a Methodism for each country in which she 
plants her missions, that therefore there is a near probability 
of many divisions, and it is asked, Why then urge a union of 
existing divisions? To this we answer,- Should our missions 
grow to such proportions and conditions as to enable them 
without our help to carry forward their own enterprises, and 
should the parent Church and the branches agree to separa- 
tion, this would involve no friction to present an insuperable 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



57 



objection. There would then grow up a federation and fellow- 
ship of Churches constituting a federated unity. The time 
doubtless will come for this ; and when it comes the proper 
method will be found. But why not, accepting this principle, 
allow the two Methodisms now existing to remain separate ? 
The answer is not difficult. The cases are not analogous. There 
may be no sufficient reason for preserving the organic unity of 
Methodism throughout the world. There may be reasons why 
it should not be preserved, why a federated union guarantee- 
ing fellowship and helpfulness would be preferable. The same 
reasons might not exist for two Methodisms side by side in the 
same locality competing and striving together. Each case must 
be considered on its own merits. The law in each and every 
case is the same, namely : that should be done which works to the 
greatest good and which is attended with the least possible evil. 
This is the " open sesame" to the solution of all difficulties. 

It is said that there is such a difference among our people in 
the different sections of the country — difference of tempera- 
ment, thought, feeling, civilization, blood — that they cannot 
coalesce ; that therefore separation is better than union. Does 
any intelligent person gravely believe this. If the fact were 
allowed would it not constitute the strongest argument for 
union ? In what way could discord possibly arise from this 
cause. The people of each section would remain as they now 
are. The same ministers would occupy the same territory 
except as occasional transfers from one section to the other, 
by the wish of the Churches and ministers. The causes of dis- 
cord would be removed by the union. This would be one of 
its most important results. 

5. It is assumed that the smaller body would suffer in the 
union. How could that be possible ? It cannot be pretended 
that the mere fact of union would work to its detriment, for 



SB 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



there would then be no differentiation of smaller and larger; 
the whole would share in the common good of the whole. 
Whatever accrues to the good of the whole would be the com- 
mon benefit of each. The remotest member would share in 
the common welfare of the whole and of every part. All that 
united Methodism is and has would accrue to each constituent. 
The union once restored, a common esprit de corps would soon 
obliterate all memories of former separation, and every section 
and member would come to a common pride and joy of fellow- 
ship ; each heart-throb would vibrate to the remotest extremity. 

The only form in which the smaller body could be put to 
disadvantage, that I have heard mentioned, is that they would 
be deprived of the honors which they now enjoy by a more 
powerful competitor — that is, the offices and emoluments of the 
Church would be denied them. Men are men even when most 
Christian, and are not to be condemned for concern for them- 
selves in matters of this kind. 

Is there reason for the fear? Is there not rather in the 
wider sphere of a greater Methodism, when consolidated into 
one, the best opportunities for the worthiest aspirations? That 
this is so will appear as we consider the reasons for the union. 

A union consummated on right principles we believe would 
be a great good, and ask candid attention to the reasons which 
produce in us that 'faith. 

The idea has been several times mooted of having two or 
three Episcopal white Methodisms on American soil, each as- 
signed a geographical division of the country — one eastern, 
one western, one southern — the three sustaining federated rela- 
tions similar to those of the States in the federal Union. 

The thought has doubtless grown out of the unsatisfactory 
condition at present existing, and is an admission that some re- 
adjustment is a real demand. The principal reasons for the 



umoy of EPiscorAL methodisms. 



09 



sno-crestion have been hinted at already, namely, that one body 
would be inconveniently and possibly dangerously large ; and 
the diversity of peoples in the different sections. Quite a num- 
ber believe that this is the real solution of the problem. It is 
assumed that such an arrangement would remove all the causes 
and evils of friction incident to the present arrangement. 
The theory proceeds upon the idea that each Church would 
by compact confine itself to its own strictly defined geograph- 
ical boundaries. The arrangement, it is argued, would prevent 
the dangers arising from overgrowth and from dissimilarity of 
tastes, and would avoid the difficulty of an unwieldy General 
Conference and the opposite evil of diminished representation, 
and would put no section at disadvantage as to the fair oppor- 
tunity for its share of the honors of office; while at the same 
time it would avert all the scandals of interference and un- 
christian competition ; that so the bodies could attain to a real 
and unembarrassed fraternity — could be practically one. The 
scheme proposes that the practical unity thus attained should 
be, by compact, further cemented by a free transfer of minis- 
ters from one section to the other by agreement of the bishops 
of the different sections and by the expressed desire of Churches 
and preachers, and that membership in the one should be mem- 
bership in the common body. 

With regard to missionary operations the plan assumes that 
it would be practicable that the three divisions should unite, so 
that only one Methodism should appear in our missionary 
ground. 

The scheme' as a theory looks plausible. Were it practica- 
ble it would fairly meet the demand pressing us ; but who does 
not see that, simple in appearance, it involves such complexi- 
ties as to make it unworkable, or, if workable, beset with mani- 
fold difficulties. What hope is there that the sections could be 



t 



60 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM&. 



induced thus to go asunder ? How could the complex mis- 
sionary work be carried forward ? 

If not absolutely impracticable the scheme, while an im- 
provement on present conditions, when put in comparison with 
the simpler adjustment proposed of uniting the two bodies into 
one, seems to me immensely more difficult and in the outcome 
less satisfactory, and at last fails to provide for the most com- 
plete good easily attainable. 

There is no probability that any such scheme will ever be 
adopted or even gravely be entertained. The main value of 
the suggestion is found in its tacit admission that something is 
needed, and in pointing out that the only practicable solution 
is a closer if not an absolute union of the two bodies. 

At last action must grapple with the simple question, What 
can be done to make their relations more satisfactory ? Every 
expedient will fail which leads aside from that simple issue. 
If there are difficulties they must be met and overcome. To 
the thing that is right no impediment can be insurmountable. 
Let us simply keep that point — What is right f — as the pole- 
star of our inquiry, and go forward with the assurance that when 
we find the answer the way will open to the proper action. 

If union should be deemed desirable, of course the terms and 
method would remain to be considered, and would of necessity 
have to be such as to be equitable and honorable alike to both 
the high contracting parties, but this would not be prima facie 
impossible to parties intent on the consummation. There are 
difficulties, and embarrassing problems would have to be solved, 
but, convinced of the importance of the measure, these could not 
necessarily prove insurmountable. On the question of method 
for the accomplishment of a desirable object there will be 
difference of judgment. This is inevitable, but not necessarily 
fatal. Candid comparison of possible plans patiently considered 



UXIOX OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES, 



61 



will bring the result. Simplicity of aim, patience, and time are 
the chief requisites. The duty of the hour is to set about the 
work earnestly. There is existing a general feeling that the 
union is desirable and that at some time it will be effected. 
There is a question as to whether the time has 'come. "What we 
claim is that the time has come to consider the case. Doubtless 
there are some who are opposed to union at any time and under 
any circumstances. They sincerely doubt its desirability. The 
preliminary discussion must therefore raise that point. The 
main object of this writing is to point out reasons for the union 
in the speediest possible time. 

(a) Procrastination will increase rather than diminish the 
difficulties. Delay is dangerous. If the two bodies are ever 
to become one it should not be postponed. So long as they re- 
main separate the spirit of individualization will grow. This 
arises from the nature of the case. Thought and feeling grow 
by mere lapse of time into set forms, and custom becomes second 
nature. Separation begets estrangement. Little differences 
are taken on which acquire force and become hard to surrender 
or accommodate in proportion to their number. Already di- 
vergence is perceptible. It will increase and tend to become 
unmanageable. 

It was a necessity precedent to restored union that old as- 
perities should die out or lose their sharpness, and that the 
occasions for separation should disappear. Time has brought 
about both of these desirable conditions. "We name therefore as 

(b) A farther reason for restored union that there is no longer 
any adequate reason for the continued separation. The absence 
of reasons for the separation is a strong reason for the union. 
If there are reasons, what are they ? If there are no reasons, 
on what principle should the disunion continue ? No one 
will pretend that a -sufficient ground is that it is an existing fact 



62 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



and should therefore remain. If it were a good in itself, or 
promotion of a good, that would be a reason for its perpetua- 
tion ; but can this be pretended ? There is then no assignable 
reason for it. No interest is benefited by it. No worthy end 
is any longer thereby served. 

If the restored union would work harm of any kind, if it 
would be detrimental to any interest, if either party would suf- 
fer by it,' there would then be a reason for weighing benefits 
against disadvantages and electing the greatest good ; but when 
only good to all concerned seems apparent what ground is there 
for hesitation ? 

(c) It is affirmed that there can be no real union where there 
is not mutual inclination, but especially where there is aversion 
or disinclination. There is reason in this ; but does it close the 
case ? Is there no obligation to consider what is right ? And 
where the parties are Christians is there no ground for the hope 
that when the right is discovered disinclination will turn into in- 
clination and aversion into attraction ? The simple question is, 
What ought to be? not, What is desired? Find the ought to 
be, and Christian desire will not be found a laggard, Nor 
is it certain that there is disinclination to union. The sub- 
ject has not been discussed. There has been no opportunity 
to find what public opinion is. Multitudes in both sec- 
tions are favorable. The sentiment is increasing. There is 
good reason to believe that a fair consideration of the subject 
will demonstrate that the feeling is wide and deep and rapidly 
growing. The current lias turned already and is setting toward 
union. What is needed is simply calm, sensible, Christian 
utterance. This is not always easy to have, but there is in the 
temper of the times reason to hope that rash and improvident 
speech will not find favor. 

Ultimately, and we think in the near future, such an adjust- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



03 



merit may be made as will satisfy the Christian conscience. If 
after a fair consideration of the subject the bodies conclude to 
remain separate, or if a closer federation seems best, or if three 
Methodisms seem best, one Southern, one consolidated colored, 
and one general, as at present, the effort to reach the best ad- 
justment will at least have secured a better understanding and. 
will leave the separate organizations to pursue their way on final 
and settled lines of policy, and our Church will have the con- 
sciousness of having exhibited the Christian spirit in offering 
honorable terms of reconciliation. Her way will then be clear 
to go forward in prosecuting her work with new zeal wherever 
her sons are found calling for her service. As the elder and 
larger she extends the olive branch on Christian terms and with 
a genuine desire ; if for any reason it is rejected there remains 
no more that she can do but to go her way, still cherishing the 
spirit of love and doing her work loyally and lovingly, and, 
whatever the event may be, history will do her honor for having 
sought the way of peace. 

The further reasons about to be assigned in favor of organic 
union assumes that it is choice between remaining "as we are 
and becoming organically united. These are undoubtedly the 
alternatives in sight. 

It is important that this fact should be borne in mind. If the 

Churches do not unite their attitude and methods must, so far 

as appears, remain unchanged. In the nature of the case, the 

causes of irritation remaining, however desirable, a more fra* 

ternal feeling can scarcely come. Each party "will retain its 

ground, not out of mere stubbornness, but from necessity. The 

two Churches will continue to strive on the same field. The 

same causes will continue to engender the same feuds and work 

the same evils. It is impossible it should be otherwise. Neither 

can withdraw. Each will take firmer and firmer root. This 
5 



64 



UXIOX OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



must be, not of mere passion or determination, but on prin- 
ciple. There is no escape from the evils consequent but by 
union. This should be looked fairly in the face in the settle- 
ment of the question. The matter we have to determine is, Is 
the alternative such as we can wisely accept in view of all that it 
involves ? 

It becomes us to think seriously and act not on impulse, but 
on the highest principles of Christian conscientiousness. The 
choice we make now, it is probable, is final. There is hardly a 
possibility that either Church will make advances in the future 
if, now that the matter is mooted, it is quashed without respect- 
ful and gracious consideration. Henceforth, if the paths do not 
now come together, there is high probability that they will in- 
creasingly diverge. 

1. The first point I make is, there are no adequate reasons 
against the union. So far as we can discover, and so far as has 
been alleged, we have considered the reasons assigned, and have 
found them to be insufficient as reasons, and to be viewed rather 
as hinderances and obstructive causes, not rational grounds. 

If there is a single valid reason we have not been able to 
find it. This fact alone constitutes a strong argument. A fact 
which has no valid or justifiable reason for its existence on 
rational grounds should cease to be a fact; no justifiable reason 
for is a reason against it. There were reasons for separation ; we 
do not gainsay that they were sufficient. That question is prop- 
erly ruled out as irrelevant. "What we affirm is that there are now 
no adequate reasons for the continuance of the severance, all the 
environments and conditions having changed. The absence — 
actual non-existence — of the reasons which laid a ground for 
the separation restores the reasons for union in all their original 
force, before the separation was effected, unless other reasons 
can be ascribed against it of sufficient weight to justify con- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



05 



tinned disunion. This, then, is the point in issue. We affirm 
that there are no such reasons, and that, in the absence of such 
reasons, continued separation is irrational and unworthy Chris- 
tian bodies. It leaves no other ground for disunion but mere 
prejudice or passion or some other equally unworthy if not 
absolutely unchristian motive, or, if neither of these, a culpable 
indifference. There is a question of right and wrong in the 
case. Disunion is right or it is wrong. 

If union would work evil to either party or put in jeopardy 
any interest secured by severance, or if it would be detrimental 
to the general interests of religion or the welfare of society, 
political, social, or in any other respect; if it would lessen the 
power of the bodies for good or militate against the freest and 
best development of the individual life of their constituents ; if 
there would be a chance for them to be more and accomplish 
more for themselves and humanity remaining apart ; if the union 
would introduce distraction and strife among them ; if it would 
require any compromise of principle or any surrender of rights; 
if it imposed upon them humiliating or dishonorable conditions; 
if it required them to make intolerable sacrifices of property or 
influence or position without reason or compensation; if either 
party were unworthy the association of the other; if there were 
unovercomable antipathies of race or habits or color ; if there 
were moral or physical or any other insurmountable objections — 
if for any of these or any other causes the union would be 
productive of evils greater than any good that might come from 
it, there might be justifiable ground for the continued severance ; 
but if none of these things can be alleged what reason can be 
set up in its support ? If, on the other hand, great evils come 
from the disunion and manifold good is hindered thereby, not 
only no justifiable reason exists for its continuance, but it becomes 
an inexcusable wrong, inexcusable in proportion to the evil 



GO 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



resulting and the good hindered. It thus appears that the 
question rises into ethical dignity. It is not a mere question of 
convenience or indifference or whimsical option, but one which 
must be determined by high moral and religious principles. 
Yery great interests are involved whether we act or not, not 
merely transient personal interests, but profound interests of 
the kingdom of God, and, as we shall see, others co-related 
therewith. The parties in the interest are Christians — two 
great Christian Churches ; it ought to be impossible for them to 
be moved by mere whiffs of passion in so grave a matter. They 
must act in the premises. Inaction is most positive action. 
The question forces itself on us. It is the simple question, 
"What is duty? — that is, what is right under existing circum- 
stances ? 

2. The second point I make is this : There being no adequate 
ground for the severance, it is seemly and natural that the 
bodies should be united, and unseemly and unnatural that they 
are not. They .are Churches of the same origin, they have 
precisely the same faith, identical creed articles, the same eccle- 
siastical economy ; essentially the same rules and regulations, 
the same religious rites and usages ; their separation was the 
result of causes which no longer exist. These facts, if there 
were no other reasons, are sufficient not only to suggest the 
propriety but to warrant the plea for reunion. There are 
divisions enough in Christendom on unavoidable grounds to 
emphasize the taunt of our enemies that Christianity is a mere 
mob of contending sectaries. On what ground can we justify 
divisions when there are no discernible lines of. separation ? 
If we could exist alone and apart in local separation, as nations 
do, or if we had not the same name and creed, or if we had 
not a common family origin, there would be no particular rea- 
son for organic union ; there might be good reasons against it — 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



07 



reasons of propriety or deeper reasons of conscience ; but in the 
absence of all these, and in the presence of the fact that we are in 
all these respects one, disunion is unseemly and discreditable. 
As well two Christianities as two Methodisms, each competing 
with the other, and each fundamentally and almost in minutia 
of incidents identical with the other. It is safe to say that no 
one can thoughtfully consider the subject and avoid the feel- 
ing that the division is irreconcilable with the spirit of Chris- 
tianity — that there is something fundamentally wrong in it, 
simply as a fact — something absolutely contrary to the teach- 
ings of our Lord in his great prayer for his Church, that they 
may be one. 

3. But now, contenting ourselves with the simple mention 
of these points, I come to the consideration of a point of seri- 
ous and weighty moment, to which I beg the earnest and godly 
attention of all who are involved : the union should be consum- 
mated because of the unavoidable evils of separation, evils great 
and grave. 

Of the separation, simply as such, it is safe to say that there 
is nothing but evil in it — absolutely without good of any kind, 
to any body or any interest, and full of evil of many kinds. 
This is a grave charge, but on examination it is believed that 
it will be found true. There is good in each body, good of 
truth, good of piety, good of earnest Christian zeal, good of 
consecrated and useful work ; but all this is despite the evils 
flowing from their separation. 

Of that no good can be predicated ; not one word of com- 
mendation can be pronounced upon it. It is good for nothing, 
springs from no good, proposes no good, effects no good ; on the 
contrary, it limits, diminishes, militates against good, is evil in 
its animus, evil in its tendencies, evil in its fruits, in its very 
essence opposed to good, a hinderance, an obstruction, a snare. 



OS 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



It hurts and harms the parties themselves in innumerable 
ways. 

1. It harms the piety of the two bodies. There may be in- 
dividuals who are not thus hurt. Some scarcely know or rarely 
think of any Methodism bnt that to which they belong. The 
harm that comes to them, if any, arises from the diminished 
tone of the piety of the body through this cause. They may 
nevertheless be real losers, sharing in the injury to the body. 
Some, despite the evil, may personally rise above it, and live in 
a higher atmosphere of love, wdiere the malaria of narrowness and 
uncharity does not reach them. But beyond all question both 
the pulpit and the pew are largely most injuriously affected 
by it. Envies, jealousies, evil-speakings, suspicions, unkind-feel- 
ings, harsh unchristian judgments, oppositions, exaggerations, 
misrepresentations, malignings, all uncharities, want of sym- 
pathy, co-operation, mutual helpfulness, rejoicing together in 
each other's welfare, prayers for each other and love unfeigned, 
are a brood of evils which infest the bodies to a large degree as 
the direct result of separation. We know that this is so. Is 
it right, is it Christian, is it worthy of men preaching the doc- 
trine we preach and making the profession we make? Can we 
justify ourselves before God and our fellow r -men in permitting 
the offense to remain when the remedy is at hand and requires 
but a little common sense and exercise of grace to apply it ? 
Is it not a scandal to the Christian name and cause to permit 
it longer to remain ? Let us search these questions in the fear 
and love of God, and is there any doubt what the answer must 
be? Can we without guilt continue indifferent to the answer? 
That our spirit is injured and our influence for good is im- 
paired, and that thus the cause of God is hurt, we cannot but 
feel. What, under the circumstance, is duty ? 

2. The second point I note is, that disunion creates an 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



60 



abuse by misuse of the talent God has committed to his Church 
for the salvation of the world. It plants in communities two 
rival forces, where one would do better work — two pulpits whose 
wrangles often disturb the peace and inflame the people with 
unfriendliness. It wastes God's money to carry on the feud. 
It oppresses the people to support contending factions. It works 
alienations and contentions. False representations are resorted 
to to raise funds to defray the expense of the unchristian war- 
fare. I have weighed these words and know that they are 
true, not merely in sporadic cases. Both the funds and talents 
of the Church are squandered, not simply without returns, but 
oft^n to the damage of the communities where the waste is made, 
when, were the occasion removed, one minister would be com- 
fortably supported and would be able to carry on the work in peace 
and comfort, and the distracted community would become ce- 
mented in love and the Church would flourish as the garden of 
the Lord. Wasted means and worse than wasted energies by union 
would build the waste places, and convert discord into harmony 
and division into concord. Is it right to perpetuate this w r aste? 
Is it right to appeal to the religious sentiment of Christian peo- 
ple to furnish means, thus to be squandered — nay, worse than 
thrown away — to build churches and support pulpits as prop- 
aganda of strife ? It is no reply to say that such is not the 
object, to garnish the motive with words of pious phrase. It 
matters nothing what the professed object may be, the effect is 
that which is here described in many cases, and is so unavoidably. 
It is no reply to affirm that such are not always the effect. 
This is admitted. Is it Christian to continue a policy wdiere 
such effects do often exist, where the best Churches would be 
better without it, and where such abuses would cease entirely ? 
The question is simply the better way. Which is the best use 
of the money of the Church and the pulpit power of the 



70 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



Clmrcli ? Which will make the best people and develop the 
highest life of the Church ? 

3. I name as a special phase of this evil that it works seri- 
ous harm to the missionary energies and enterprises of both 
bodies, and to the Christian cause wherever they appear in 
heathen lands, and for evangelizing work in semi-Christian 
countries. The bare mention of this point is all that is neces- 
sary. It carries conviction without argument. There is not a 
field where the evil is not felt to be most serious. There is no 
practicable remedy but by the removal of the occasion. The 
evil is one which time will not cure, but must continue to grow 
with the ages. Two Methodisms side by side in any land and 
at anj^ time can work only evil. 

4. The next point I make is : The severance of these Churches 
works evil to the country in which we live. This would nec- 
essarily be so at any time and under any circumstances. What- 
ever brings weakness or harm or scandal and disharmony among 
Christian bodies without a real cause of principle works harm 
to public welfare and the nation at large. Contentions, even 
where principle is involved, and which therefore cannot be 
avoided, are often deplorable in their effects ; but carried on 
among Christians in mere passion on partisan grounds the 
damage to welfare is incalculable, unsettling faith and begetting 
scorn of religion itself. The piety of a nation is its only safety. 
Whatever militates against it is inimical to its highest interests 
in the highest degree. But our country is especially open to 
injury from the strifes of these two great bodies because of pe- 
culiar circumstances. We have just passed through a great and 
frightful sectional war, in which the deepest feuds were engen- 
dered. Nothing is so difficult and nothing so important as the 
healing of these wounds. Every patriot feels it, and every 
statesman. These Churches, whether they will or not, repre- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHOD I SMS. 



71 



sent sectional ideas and embody sectional feeling. Their con- 
tinued separation carries on the Avar and strife after the armies 
have been disbanded and peace proclaimed. They are two 
great and influential bodies embracing larger numbers than any 
other denomination. Their power to insure the blessings of 
peace or to continue the fomentation of strife is paramount. 
Their disunion cannot but work harm and injury to public wel- 
fare and the nation's peace. Duty to the country at large, to 
the cause of religion, and to God demands that at the earliest 
possible time they should remove this great evil. It is in their 
power more than any single instrument to heal the wounds 
which are still festering. If they will they can speak the word 
of peace. 

Can they as Christian bodies longer withhold that word? 
Their peculiar strictures of ecclesiasticism devolves upon them 
the responsibility of peace-makers. Can they without sin per- 
petuate strife ? 

We act not for to-day only, but for the ages. We are citizens 
of a great nation, the preservation of whose institutions depends 
upon the harmony of its parts. Can we permit our sect feuds to 
imperil that harmony without meriting the condemnation of our 
fellow-countrymen ? If we are ever to have a perfectly united 
and happy country the reasons and sentiments which keep alive 
sectionalism must disappear, and we must come to feel that we 
are one people with common interests, divided by no lines, no 
North, no South. No one circumstance would more contribute 
to this result than the union of the two Methodisms dominant 
in the two sections. We plead for the union in the interest of 
the nation's future. The wisest statesmen have exhausted all 
the resources of their best genius, patriots have prayed and 
longed, commerce has lent its helping hand, orators and poets 
have pleaded, the best people have desired and yearned for peace 



72 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



and healing. From rim to rim of the nations comes the cry 
for union of hearts and hands. The land is weary of strife. 
Only the brigandage of the nation in hiding-places foments hate 
and contention. Shall \ t be that these two great Churches, by 
causeless continued separation, shall alone, or only in company 
with the ignorant and vile, longer be the evil genii who fan the 
dying embers to keep them alive ? Surely there is a better 
way. 

5. Disunion works evil especially to that large portion of our 
fellow-citizens and countrymen who differ from us in color. A 
race problem has grown up among us in the most aggravated 
form and beset with the most perplexing and embarrassing diffi- 
culties. The deepest interests of the nation are involved in it, 
and as Christians we cannot dissociate ourselves from it. It 
will tax the utmost wisdom of the highest statesmanship to 
bring it to a happy issue. Our denominational disunion in great 
part owes its origin to this very problem, and now adds to the 
difficulty of its just and Christian solution. I am extremely 
anxious to say the right word on this subject. 

The colored race are a numerous part of our citizenship, ag- 
gregating not less than one tenth of the nation. In the section 
of the country where one of these great Churches chiefly exists 
and has always existed it constitutes more than one third of 
the entire population; in some portions of the section it is more 
than one half. Much the larger part were once slaves or are 
the descendants of those who were recently in slavery. It is 
but a quarter of a century since, by the arbitrament of war, 
their chains were broken. Angry sectional strifes long preceded 
their liberation. They are now free and still resident among 
their former masters. How to lift them into preparation for 
their new estate, and how to view and treat them in their new 
condition, is the vexata qucestio. The peace and future weal of 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



73 



the nation is involved in its right solution. They are men, and 
entitled to all the rights of men. They are citizens, and are en- 
titled to all rights of citizenship. But to secure these ends at 
once is the besetting difficulty. More than mere governmental 
power is needed. Law is necessary, but it is not sufficient, nor 
is any possible enforcement of law adequate. There is a great 
and necessary work to he done which will require time and the 
enlistment of the best energies of the best people, especially in 
the section where the difficulty mainly impinges and by the 
people who most keenly feel its soreness. Foreign interference 
in extreme exigencies may be needed, but unduly and unwisely 
exercised can do nothing but hinder. 

A.t the close of the forever-to-be-lamented but impossible- 
to-be-avoided war there were real reasons for the presence of 
armed powers and missionary labor to protect and help these 
people. No one doubts this, and the reasons need not be recited. 
They were such as to justify — more than that — to require — the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and other Churches and organiza- 
tions and individuals even in adopting measures of help for 
them. 

From pure philanthropic, patriotic, and high Christian motives, 
at great personal sacrifice often, and the expenditure of millions 
counted by scores, possibly hundreds, of public and private 
funds, they went among them and befriended them, to help them 
to understand and enter upon the new life which had so sud- 
denly opened to them. That under the environments it created 
friction and awakened hostility, and not un frequently led to 
bloody resistance, is only to say that men are men. "What could 
be done by force and foreign interference has been accomplished, 
if not always in the best way, we may venture to say character- 
istically, if not perfectly, by the best motives. All this neces- 
sarily engendered or kept alive sectional feud. It could not be 



74 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



otherwise, and there is no occasion for imputing blame to either 
party where perfection cannot be claimed by any. It is better 
to thank God that we have got as far over the trouble as we 
have and waste no thought on mistakes. 

What we now affirm is this : the time has now come when 
the disunion of these two Churches is hurtful to these people, 
which means that we could now better meet present emergen- 
cies by union. There was a time when it was impossible for us 
to join hands. Human weakness was not equal to it. It is to 
be hoped that that time has now passed, and that changed con- 
ditions has reared a platform on which we can stand together 
to complete the work which can never be finished without the 
union. To secure to them their rights and help them to prep- 
aration to enjoy them is not the work of a section, and never 
can be accomplished by a section relatively foreign. It must, 
for final success, enlist the whole nation as a unit in hearty and 
sincere co-operation. Methodism on many accounts, which 
need not be recited, must continue to have an important hand 
in the work, but while it remains a disunited body it practi- 
cally excludes the Methodism nearest to them from participa- 
tion in it by keeping alive the idea that it is unfriendly and 
unconsenting. The union of the bodies would speedily correct 
this injustice, and, being acknowledged and recognized as 
friends, not allies simply, but principals in the beneficent work, 
they would find their most powerful spokesmen and sympa- 
thizers and active helpers, not among distant strangers, but 
among their neighbors. Xo more fatal injury can be done to 
the colored citizens than the perpetuation of the severance of 
them from the sympathy and hearty co-operation of the people 
among whom they live, and nothing can cure that evil while 
they are taught to look to those of another section as friends 
protecting them from their neighbors. Let a great united 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL 



METIIODISMS. 



75 



Methodism, especially strong and influential right about them, 
be recognized as standing for them and committed to their 
help, and the beginning of a real reconstruction will be reached, 
and sectional hinderances will be removed out of the way. In 
the best interests of the colored portion of our fellow-countrymen 
we plead for restored union of these Churches. The needed 
work for them is only begun. A long line of continuous effort 
remains. They have made hopeful progress, but immensity of 
need still exists. If they are ever to take their stand in a 
high plane of advancement and become an educated and pros- 
perous race it must be by the patient toil and forbearance of 
their fellow-citizens among whom they live. The union of 
these Churches would be among the surest guarantees of this 
result. 

5. The next point I note is : The union should be consummated 
because of the positive blessings that would flow therefrom, to 
the bodies themselves, to the common cause of religion, and to 
public welfare at large. 

The abatement of evils is a positive good, but there are 
other and greater consequent goods which deserve to be men- 
tioned ; they are many and great. 

I do not name among these reasons that it would add to the 
power and glory of our name ; that it would place us foremost 
among the sects in number and political influence; that it 
would make us dominant in all sections of the land ; that it 
would aggrandize us as a sect in any way. These are not mo- 
tives worthy of Christian men. We neither desire nor aim at 
such ends. God has greatly blessed and honored us. He has 
loaded us with all the responsibilities we can bear. Our chief 
concern is that we may so demean ourselves as to be a blessing to 
the world in the honors he has put upon us and the power with 
which he has invested as. When we cease to be almoners of good 



76 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL 3IETH0DISMS. 



— a blessing to men — there will then be no more reason for our 
existence. He has given us a position and brought us to a time 
when we can add to all the past good we have been instru- 
mental in doing — not merely continued usefulness in promoting 
religion among the people, but still greater usefulness even in 
these lines; but, more than this, to a position and time when 
we can do essential service to the strengthening of our national 
life and permanence and glory and extension of our free insti- 
tutions; and still more yet when we can add new luster to the 
Christian name by the highest exemplification of the Christian 
spirit. This is our opportunity, that comes but once. All this 
will be achieved by simply laying down our petty strifes and 
by uniting together on the high plane of a single purpose, sacri- 
ficing prejudice and passion, of doing that which will glorify 
God and promote the best good of our fellow-men. 

I name anions; the goods that would come from our reunion : 
(a) It would send a thrill of joy and of renewed confidence and 
hope through the heart of the nation; patriots and statesmen 
would bless and honor us ; all our sister-Churches would com- 
mend the act ; the religious and secular press of the land would 
send paeans to heaven and hail it as a harbinger of good ; North 
and South would share the common joy; it would open up a 
new life-spring to the nation itself; for all would recognize it 
not simply as a thing that is right and seemly and honorable in 
itself, but as the beginning of a better future for the religious 
and political welfare of our land, the beginning of the end of 
sectional alienations. No single event could occur that would 
*impose more general and genuine satisfaction. From the day 
of its occurrence feuds would begin to die ; gangrened and 
long-unhealed sores would begin to disappear; hearts would 
flow together long alienated; old loves would be rekindled; 
in a hundred thousand homes prayers and thanksgiving would 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



77 



ascend ; the kiss of reconciliation would gladden five million 
souls. 

The old wall of sectional separation, whose frowning battle- 
ments seemed to defy all siege, have been providentially broken 
down, never to be rebuilt. Only the subsidiary fortresses of 
prejudice and passion which grew behind it and the debris of 
its ruin remain. These leveled, the mold of a new civiliza- 
tion would soon cover them from sight, and, by the attrition of 
contact and the fellowship of new thoughts and feelings, upon 
them would flourish a new age of loving emulation and har- 
mony. We would thus soon become one people indissolubly 
cemented together, a common life-blood reaching to every ex- 
tremity. Methodism, by separation, stands in the way; by 
union it would hasten the consummation of this beneficent re- 
sult. Will she longer interpose an impediment? It seems to 
me impossible that she should assume this frightful responsi- 
bility. It will belie her spirit. She lias from the first been 
distinguished for her heroism in every good cause, ready to 
sacrifice, to do and dare for the right. Shall her ancient fame 
be tarnished by failure in this her grandest opportunity ? It 
will not. She will meet the expectation of the age and rise to 
the demand of the hour. Her hosts will come together, and 
under one banneraga in they will give the nation joy. Massa- 
chusetts and South Carolina, ancient rivals, will cement the 
bond of a deathless friendship, and the lands of the gulf and of 
the mountains will shout together over the union. 

(J>) The next point I note is: The union will make a better 
people of both Churches. Freed from the parasites of separa- 
tion; we shall grow into a better type of Christian manhood — 
be broader, more generous, more noble. A new life of energy 
and enterprise will come to us. Each will impart inspiration 
to the other. Animated with a common aim, and united in a 



78 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



common purpose, we will grow stronger and wiser. Letting 
go all petty strife and partisan narrowness, we will rise to 
grander conceptions and do better work for G-od and human- 
ity. Each has something to give which will add strength and 
beauty. The South will send some of its best brain and heart 
into the pulpits of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, 
and other cities ; and the North will transfer some of her best 
sons to the pulpits of Richmond, Nashville, New Orleans, and 
other cities of the South, and new life and new ideas will glad- 
den the congregations of both sections. The glorious bishops 
of the South will stir the Conferences of the North, and my 
honored colleagues will delight the Conferences of the South ; 
and we will wonder how it was that we remained separate so 
long, and marvel at the old thoughts of each other, while we 
grow sweeter and mellower and more Christian under minis- 
tries so unlike what in our alienation we imagined to exist. It 
used to be so. It will be so again. The South will bring 
greatly needed conservatism and warmth of zeal and simplicity 
of faith to the North, and the North will carry greater free- 
dom and broader culture to the South, and each will thrive 
under the improved conditions. No section can thrive in isola- 
tion or alone. 

(c) I name as my next point : The union, should it occur, 
will improve all our institutional interests, such as our educa- 
tional foundations, missionary enterprises, publishing depart- 
ment — papers, magazines, and books ; church-extension work, 
and all matters of this kind. The united wisdom of the body 
and its combined strength will bring larger results, and the 
Church will profit in liberality and intelligence as it gets the 
broader view and takes on its heart the enlarged work it is 
doing. The shelves at Nashville will be enriched by the wealth 
of the shelves of New York, and New York will add to its 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



79 



treasures the precious tilings of Nashville. The great church 
boards will be strengthened by new accessions of thought and. 
experience. 

(d) Delivered from the wastes of friction and misappropri- 
ated energy, and inspired by higher motives, and combining 
all our forces to the simple end of furthering the kingdom of 
God in the earth, we shall augment all our power for good. 
We will no more degrade ourselves in mere partisan aims and. 
unwholesome competitions, but will emulate each other in every 
section in Christian endeavors. We shall each become greater 
and stronger as we work to a common end. United, our com- 
bined influences will be felt in every good cause from one end 
of the country to the other. This power is put at our disposal. 
Can we waste it in strife without incurring serious guilt ? 

(e) I name as my last point, and greater than every other 
consideration: The union could not fail to secure the blessing 
of God if accomplished with a simple aim to advance truth and 
righteousness in the earth. Can any one doubt this? "Would 
not heaven rejoice with the earth in the result? Nothing can 
be more certain than this. The Holy Ghost, that puts it in 

* your heart and mine to desire it, avouM smile upon the union. 
The adorable Christ, who is the head, as we are the members 
of his body, would rejoice in it. We are not two by the will 
of God; however it may have been once, he calls us now to 
union. 

These, inadequately expressed for the want of power to set 
them forth in all their strength, are some of the reasons which 
impel me to plead with my brothers to consider the subject 
without further delay. Keep in mind that the simple ques- 
tion to be decided is this : What is for the greatest good — 
what is right — what ought to be? The answer is to come from 

the Christian stand-point — not that of expediency merely. The 
6 



so 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



answer now returned is final. The interests involved are great, 
great as affecting Christianity at large, religion itself ; great 
as affecting public and general welfare ; great as affecting the 
Churches themselves. The demand is for high, honorable, 
heroic action, on the loftiest plane of motive, putting aside all 
prejudice and passion. 

To achieve the best result all the parties in the interest will 
need divine help. The whole Church should betake itself to 
earnest prayers for heavenly guidance, but especially those 
upon whom the decision more immediately depends — the min- 
istry at large. There is reason to hope that whatever the em- 
barrassments to a right decision it will finally be reached, if not 
to-day, then in the near to-morrow. Let the discussion be con- 
ducted in temper and manner befitting the subject, and the 
parties upon whom it devolves — honestly, patiently, lovingly, 
without artifice, and with painstaking to exclude all merely 
confusing irrelevancies. The high court of history and of the 
greater public of Christendom will await the decision with pro- 
found interest, and will in turn affix its seal of approbation or 
disapprobation upon the actors and the action. 

It, no doubt, will be that many who will read these utter- 
ances will see other and stronger reasons than any here named, 
or will be able to improve the statement of those mentioned. 
Let not the cause suffer by the advocate. Give it the advan- 
tage of your own best effort to arrive at the truth. This it 
deserves, and this your personal responsibility demands. So 
far as I now see I have with perfect sincerity and without 
prejudice done my best to help to a wise solution of the prob- 
lem of duty. If you can do better, duty requires it of you. 

If you for any cause entertain a different view from that 
herein defended it becomes your duty to give the reasons. 
Only reasons ought to have weight, and only reasons should be 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



SI 



employed. It is easy to weaken the force of truth by artifice. 
As Christians we dare not do this. It is not a matter about 
which Ave can aim simply at triumph without respect to means 
and methods. That is a low aim, and often determined by low 
arts. We aim simply to arrive at duty, not at carrying a point. 

I close the argument, so far as it deserves to be called such, 
by appealing to the best that is in us to avoid every thing that 
would engender passion or in any way mislead the judgment. 
We be brothers, having but one interest to reach the wisest 
conclusion. Let us reason together as such. 

If after mature deliberation the* conviction should become 
prevalent among us that right and duty demand organic unity 
we should then stand face to face with a remaining perplexity, 
namely, how to effect the union. There would necessarily 
arise many questions and phases of difficulty. However pro- 
found the conviction, and, consequently, however strong the 
desire, differences will have to be adjusted; surrenders will 
have to be made; new lines of policy will have to be accepted ; 
harmonization of little divergencies will have to be effected ; 
some grave matters will have to be settled. Can we, after all, 
come together? There are always lions in the way to every 
measure aiming at the best. It is not difficult to create a panic, 
by alleging insurmountable difficulties in the way of plain duty. 

"What we need to do is simply to find what is duty. Duty 
is never impracticable; once ascertained the way will open. 
But the best way demands wise thought, as the performance 
demands brave purpose. It is well, therefore, to consider some 
things which will be helpful in reaching the proper method and 
for securing the accomplished end. 

1. The first thing needed is, we must reach the firm convic- 
tion that the thing proposed is right — is the thing that ought 
to be. 



82 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METEODISMS. 



2. We must determine that what ought to be not only can 
be but shall be. 

3. We must determine that it shall be without surrender of 
absolute principle, since nothing ought to be which requires 
the surrender of principle. 

4. We must avoid lifting mere prejudices or preferences into 
the dignity of principles. 

5. We must not allow mere prejudices or preferences to 
stand in the way of manifest duty, but must be willing to sur- 
render these for the accomplishment of the greater good. This 
will be the severest strain, but not beyond the power of sensi- 
ble and Christian men. 

6. While aiming at the ideal we must not commit the folly 
of refusing the possible best because we may not be able to 
reach the ideal perfect. 

7. We must avoid pressing unreasonable demands as condi- 
tions of the union. 

8. We must regard each other as equals, and be scrupulous 
to observe this in our manner of treatment. 

9. We must see that no right of any is trampled upon or 
disregarded. A right is never achieved by resort or consent to 
a wrong. 

10. We must avoid needless irritation by renewing obsolete 
contentions. 

11. We must set about the work with cordial respect for and 
mutual confidence in each other. 

12. We must proceed with a cheerful faith that what ought 
to be can and will be. 

13. We must constantly keep a single eye to the glory of 
God, and in the whole proceeding seek his guidance and help. 

These rules, which ought not to be difficult to God-fearing 
men, observed, we cannot fail of reaching a conclusion which will 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METH0DIS2IS. 



83 



be creditable to ourselves and will give joy to heaven and all 
good men on earth. 

To bring the result to a happy issue the General Conferences 
of the respective bodies should order a commission of suffi- 
cient size, composed of an equal number of the wisest ministers 
and laymen and the bishops of each Church, to prepare a plat- 
form of union, which should afterward be submitted to a called 
General Conference comprising the members of both bodies 
ordering the commissions as a final body to pass upon and 
adopt the platform, unless some better method can be de- 
vised. 

We believe that it is in the possibilities and easy reach of the 
Churches within the next few years to bring the union to a suc- 
cessful issue, and from the day the commission shall be agreed 
upon we have the belief that both Churches would begin to re- 
joice in the prospective union as a most happy foregone conclu- 
sion. From half a million homes and millions of hearts of our 
own people, and from pulpit and pew of our sister-Churches, 
prayers would ascend for its consummation. That very day, in 
anticipation of the event, feuds would begin to die, old loves 
would kindle new fires, happy peoples would gather into bon- 
fires the old rubbish of hate and enmities, and a new life would 
thrill the lon^-withered veins and nerves of a reconciled nation. 

The great boon is within easy reach. It not merely invites 
us, but commands us, to reach forth our hand and take it. If 
we will hear the divine voice calling to us, commanding us, it 
will be ours, and the old Methodism of our fathers will come 
again, and, with not simply restored but with renewed luster, 
will go forth on a new mission of conquest in our own and all 
lands. If with it there might come a new consecration to us ; 
if, girding ourselves afresh, we might do away with all conten- 
tion and give ourselves wholly to the work of extending the 



84 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM &. 



kingdom — the simple and single work of saving men — what a 
power in our doctrines and economy God has put in our hands ! 
No such agency, judged hj its results, has ever been given to 
any people. "Will we not learn to appreciate this 1 Will we be 
false to it ? A thousand sirens are luring us. Will we commit 
the fatal blunder of listening to them ? 

Methodism, dear, beloved Methodism, behold your opportu- 
nity. The ages are waiting to crown yon. All lands to the 
rims of the world are calling to you. The heavens are full of 
expectant watchers. Close up the ranks and in solid phalanx 
lead the battle for humanity. Hearken not to the siren. Let 
traitors and time-servers and grumblers have no place. Join 
hands, join hearts ; renew your vows of fealty to the right ; be 
heroes ; humanity needs you. Yon have come to the age of ages ; 
the greatest of the battles is set ; treason fills the air ; cowards 
and cravens and deserters fly their colors. O, ye sons of Wes- 
ley, assert your ancient fame. March forth an undivided band 
under your great Captain, who leads the armies of the living 
God ; burnish anew your swords. Your fathers turned the bat- 
tle aforetime and seized the prey from the enemy ; millions in 
heaven and millions on earth bless them ; let not their sons be 
unworthy of their sires. 

We plead not for your sakes alone, but for humanity. The 
destroyer is abroad. Hydra-headed he leads to raven, and spreads 
terror and dismay. Many are struck with panic and faint with 
fear. Sons of Wesley, once again, dauntless with a faith that 
shrinks at no peril, close up the ranks and lead on to victory. 
Come from the snows of ~New England, come from her valleys 
and hills, whose peaks are first to catch the glory of the morn- 
ing ; come from the prairies and the slopes of the Pacific, where 
the last lingering day sinks into coming night ; come from 
sunny Southland, always radiant with flowers ; come all, with 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



85 



loyal, loving hearts, and with united hands and hearts usher the 
day that shall never again have an evening, the day of a union 
that shall last forever. 



Since writing the preceding pages Bishop Merrill's book on 
" Organic Union " and Dr. Harrison's book on " Methodist 
Union " have appeared. They are both remarkable productions. 
The judgment herein expressed against rehabilitating old 
issues might seem to have reference to them. In fact, it had 
been written before their books appeared. The reading of 
them confirms me in the correctness of the position taken. 
Both of the distinguished authors seem favorably disposed to- 
some adjustment which will approach a form of organic unity, 
but each, by opening old issues, has, we think, without intending 
it, probably embarrassed the case ; still it may not be so. We 
have no word of censure. 

The concluding chapter of Dr. Harrison's book on Methodist 
union sets forth a view adverse to that which has been advo- 
cated in the foregoing pages, and assigns eight reasons against 
organic union. The other portions of his book, while showing 
much learning and industry along certain lines, are entirely aside 
from the matters herein discussed, and relate to matters which, 
it seems to me, it is unwise and unprofitable to exhume at this 
time, but especially in any attempt to bring about right rela- 
tions between the two great bodies interested. Bishop Merrill's 
book is open to the same criticism. Its temper is in the main 
all that could be desired, and its tone is calm and judicial, as are 
all the utterances of its distinguished author; but it rehabili- 
tates things which ought rather to be forgotten, and smacks of 
the influence of personal memories of one who was an actor in 
the scenes over which the curtain of oblivion should be drawn 
as speedily as possible. Surely the discussion of both books is 



86 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



an anachronism, and, despite the ability and temper displayed, 
is not to edification. The talent to forget is sometimes of 
great value. 

The reasons assigned by Dr. Harrison against organic unity 
are such as occur to all who think upon the subject. They are 
not without weight, but are certainly far from determinative, 
and as weighed against other considerations it seems to me fail 
to make a strong case against the theory advocated by us. 
What we ask is fair consideration. 

1. The first named is admitted by the doctor himself to be 
without significance, namely, the danger from so large a body 
as an enginery for partisan politics. 

2. The second objection is that in so large a body representa- 
tion in the law-making body is reduced to an insufficient ratio 
or the law-making body is raised to unwieldy proportions. 
There is something in this, but we are not able to feel that the 
difficulty is insurmountable. Who can doubt that one third 
the present number would be entirely adequate to all the pur- 
poses of legislation, with a better chance at right conclusions? 

3. The third reason offered is that the two geographical 
sections are so different that they cannot agree. Is there proof 
of this ? Must we accept it as even probably true ? The peo- 
ple of the two sections do differ in some respects, but is the 
ground of difference so radical that it will not yield to the in- 
fluence of association, or that it demands that they should be 
two nations forever ? We are reluctant to believe this. 

4. The fourth reason is that the Church South is nearly as 
unanimous to-day as it was in 1844, and is prosperous and con- 
tented and simply desires to be let alone. Is this a reason ? 
Prosperity is a reason for thanksgiving, without doubt. Is it a 
reason for continued separation ? Is the desire to be left alone 
absolute proof that it is best that it should be so ? All these 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



87 



allegations Lad been anticipated, with others, and we find in 
their statement nothing new. In fact, I find myself unable to 
discover, in aught that has been said or written that has fallen 
under my notice any thing which constitutes a weighty reason 
against the reunion of these bodies. The embarrassment to the 
result is not in the reasons against it, but in prejudices and feel- 
ings which have been engendered and kept alive during years 
of strife. This is not so of one side more than the other. We 
have yielded to these influences too long. Has not the time come 
for a more rational course ? Reasons may be overcome by 
stronger reasons ; but how can we deal with prejudice and pas- 
sion or mere volition? There is nothing left in such a case but 
to bow to the tempest and wait for the better time when reason 
and principle shall be restored. 

Let us try to find a better way. The plan suggested by Dr. 
Harrison himself indicates a possible advance. If we can come 
together and compare our best and holiest thinkings, out of 
them a way will open. 

Dr. Harrison closes his book thus : " Speaking as an individ- 
ual, the writer would prefer to see four grand divisions of 
Episcopal Methodism in America, the Eastern, Southern, West- 
ern, and the Colored General Conferences, the whole Church 
bound together by an advisory Council, representing Confer- 
ence districts, and limited to the discussion of interests com- 
mon to all, without authority over any. Such federation we be- 
lieve to be feasible and desirable. 

" While we have the kindest feeling for every branch of the 
great Methodist family, we must approximate nearest to the 
Church (North) because of our system of government, and we 
think that there is no reason why an itinerant preacher should 
not be transferred from one section to the other, under agree- 
ment of the bishops of both Churches, without submitting to 



88 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



the degrading process of withdrawing from one Church in 
order to join the other. The perfect independence of each 
Church is compatible with an arrangement by which, as an act 
of comity, mutual and reciprocal, such transfers could be made 
whenever demanded. But for the present, and as far into the 
future as it has been given us to see, the interests and welfare 
of our Southern Methodism imperatively demand the jurisdic- 
tional independence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

" The subject of the organic union of all the Episcopal Meth- 
odist bodies possesses a charm for many persons. But there 
are so many difficulties in the way of such a consummation 
that it is useless to discuss the question in any proposition that 
looks to the absorption of ecclesiastical government under one 
General Conference jurisdiction. 

" There is, however, a more excellent way. Let there be one 
i Methodist Episcopal Church in America ' under four Gen- 
eral Conference jurisdictions : 1. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, North, comprising New England and the Central 
States to the Mississippi River. 2. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, comprising the territory of the slave-holding 
States as they existed in 1860, or, if preferred, the boundary 
established by the ' Plan of Separation ' in 1844. 3. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, West, comprising all the terri- 
tory west of the Mississippi River and north of the Southern 
boundary. 4. The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, com- 
prising (1) the African Methodist Episcopal Church (Bethel), 
(2) the African Methodist Episcopal Church (Zion), and (3) the 
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in America. These four 
divisions would be held in one Church organization by the 
nexus of a Methodist Church Council, meeting once in four 
years, and in the year succeeding one of the General Confer- 
ences, so that there would be no conflict as to the time of meet- 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISES. 



89 



ing, the Council and the Conference having its membership 
probably in the same persons. Let each General Conference 
jurisdiction be divided into council districts, with one or two? 
probably two, a layman and a minister, from each district, and 
the membership of the Council confined to fifty or sixty per- 
sons ; the General Conference of each jurisdiction to elect the 
members of the Council ; this Council to have no legislative or 
judicial functions, but to be an advisory body only, considering 
such subjects as appertain to the general welfare of the Church ; 
the name or title of the Church to be in common, and a com- 
mon law of transfer of preachers from one jurisdiction to an- 
other, without blame or prejudice and subject only to the 
appointing power dismissing and receiving. 

" In such a division of the jurisdictional powers of the four 
General Conferences there need be no structural or internal 
change in any one section of the Church, and any modifica- 
tion, alteration, or addition which may appear desirable, and 
may not be chosen in another, if adopted by any one will in no 
wise change, abridge, or injuriously affect the rights of any 
other. Territorial sovereignty would inhere in the General Con- 
ference, and one General Conference could have no legislative 
authority over another. 

" This plan would make us one Church, with more than four 
and a half millions of communicants at the present time, each 
branch numbering nearly the membership of the Southern 
Church in 1S90, and with room provided for fourfold expan- 
sion. 

" The partition of territory and members would be met with 
objections, more or less vigorous, according to circumstances. 
But there need be no violent displacements. Natural laws could 
safely be left to work changes of adaptation, and the institu- 
tions of learning or other enterprises now under the care of the 



90 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METHODISMS. 



Church (North) could be continued until such time as all parties 
were ready for a transfer to the Church South. The South- 
ern States are poor, the Northern States rich, but the balance 
of wealth will not always remain North. Nature has made the 
South the richest section of the Union, and as there is no longer 
a question about this reality of natural wealth the progress of 
the South will be more rapid in the next ten years than ever 
before." 

The view here presented, or one in substantial agreement 
therewith, has been presented in the Church papers of . both 
Churches. It is understood to have found much favor with 
our Southern brethren. Its chief value, w T e are constrained to 
think, consists in the proof it furnishes that in some way the 
problem must be solved. "We do not think that it furnishes 
the solution, but it suggests something. On examination 
doubtless much of it would be found impracticable, and were 
it adopted serious evils would still remain ; but it is not, there- 
fore, without value. 

The immediate thing to be secured is the appointment of 
a commission of not too great size of the wisest men of the 
several Churches, to discuss together all possible plans of union, 
and out of them to evolve one that will come the nearest in 
their judgment to the ideal, and then submit it to the united 
General Conference for amendment and adoption. When 
once the initiative is taken crude, undigested ideas will take 
form, and a plan will be born which will commend itself to 
the Church. 

The things to be kept in mind now are : 1. There is urgent 
cause for immediate action. 2. The one guiding thought is to 
be, What is right ? and, therefore, What ought to be ? 3. Set 
the best men to work to consider the subject and report their 
conclusions. 



UNION OF EPISCOPAL METIIODISMS. 



01 



So far is plain. When we have advanced so far the way will 
open for further progress. 

It has not been my object to discuss any plans that have been 
presented, hinted at in the prints, or in conversations in lay or 
clerical circles, or those even intimated in this book ; but, 
rather, simply to offer reasons for the consideration of the sub- 
ject at this time, and more especially reasons for the final or- 
ganic union of these bodies. I feel certain that in these respects 
what has been herein said largely voices the prevailing senti- 
ment of the best minds in both sections, and as the subject is 
considered will more and more find favor. 

Plans are an after-consideration, and when a competent com- 
mission has been formed will be evolved and matured. Let 
the whole Church pray for the right outcome. 



THE END. 



